browser_text

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses that the tool supports explicit execution timing with options for background or synchronous work, and explains on_timeout behavior. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects. With no annotations, this is a moderate disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief (two sentences), but the first sentence adds little value ('Kali Agent MCP tool: browser_text'). The information is not front-loaded; the core purpose is missing entirely.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 8 parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (text?), nor does it cover all parameters. The output schema is not provided, so the agent cannot infer return value structure.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain all parameters. It only covers timing-related parameters (expected_runtime_seconds, timeout_seconds, etc.) and on_timeout, but omits 'selector' and 'max_chars', which are crucial for the tool's core functionality.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description does not explicitly state that this tool extracts text from a browser page. It focuses on execution timing, leaving the primary function (reading text) implied by the name. Among sibling tools like browser_html or browser_screenshot, the purpose is not clearly distinguished.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use browser_text versus other browser read tools (e.g., browser_html, browser_console). The description only discusses timing parameters, not the appropriate context for tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.