read_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only extraction of text ('verbatim'), but does not describe execution prerequisites, return format, waiting behavior, or limitations, leaving significant gaps for a browser-automation tool.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the target, and the intended context immediately.

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 a simple 0-param tool, the description is minimally adequate. But with no annotations and no output schema, it should at least hint at the return format or execution behavior, which it does not.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is effectively empty, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline for a 0-param tool is 4.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('page's prose verbatim'), plus a usage scope ('article or thread of comments'). This distinguishes it from value-oriented siblings like read_value or visual tools like screenshot, but it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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 phrase 'for an article or a thread of comments' gives a clear usage scenario. However, it provides no guidance on when not to use the tool and does not mention alternatives such as read_value or snapshot, leaving sibling selection partly to inference.

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