get_page_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: no information about permissions needed, whether it's read-only or has side effects, error handling, or what format the extracted text returns. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with page content.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward extraction tool and gets directly to the point.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'text content' means (plain text vs HTML, formatting preservation), doesn't mention performance considerations or limitations, and provides no context about the extraction process or result format.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline for adequate but not exceptional parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the action ('Extract text content') and target resource ('from the page'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'take_snapshot' or 'evaluate_mainworld' that might also retrieve page content in different forms, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparison to other content extraction methods available in the sibling tool list, leaving the agent to infer usage context independently.

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