page_read_ref

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly identifies this as a read operation and adds the key trait 'no truncation', which is behaviorally meaningful. It does not describe error cases or exact return formatting, but for a read-only ref-based tool the core behavior is well exposed.

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 two sentences with no filler, and the most important information (read full value, no truncation) is front-loaded. The usage guidance is compact and directly actionable.

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?

For a simple read-by-ref tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough context: what it does, what sets it apart, and when to use it. It could mention return value shape or invalid-ref behavior, but these are minor given how clearly the core use case is defined.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, with only 'ref' documented. The description adds meaning by explaining that the ref comes from page_a11y and that the point is reading the full, untruncated value. However, it does not clarify session_id or page_id, though their names are relatively self-evident from context.

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 states a precise verb and resource: read the full value of an element using its page_a11y ref. It also differentiates itself from the snapshot tool by emphasizing no truncation, so an agent can distinguish it from page_a11y, page_snapshot, and the other page_* siblings.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use condition: when the snapshot's 200-char preview is insufficient, such as for body text or long input fields. This directly contrasts with the snapshot preview and makes the selection decision clear without needing to inspect sibling schemas.

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