chrome_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must assume the burden. It states the output is structured content (text, links, buttons, fields), which is helpful, but it doesn't disclose any side effects (e.g., it's a read operation, navigation is not performed) or limitations (e.g., requires an open tab, may not capture dynamic content). The description is better than nothing but lacks depth for a tool with no annotations.

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 compact, two sentences, with the core purpose (read as structured content) front-loaded. The comparison to get_screen and screenshots adds value without fluff.

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 the tool has an output schema (though not shown in the prompt), the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. However, with no annotations and zero parameter coverage, an agent needs to know what 'device' and 'tab_id' mean and prerequisites (like needing an open tab). The description is adequate for the main purpose but lacks critical context for a tool with mutable parameters.

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 0%, so the description carries no parameter information. The parameters 'device' and 'tab_id' are opaque from the schema, and the description doesn't explain them or their format (e.g., device ID vs. adb ID). Given the low coverage, the description should compensate but doesn't, so a 3 is appropriate as it provides no help beyond names.

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 tool reads a page as structured content (text, links, buttons, fields). It distinguishes itself from get_screen and screenshot reading, which helps select it. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that it operates on a Chrome tab or how it relates to other chrome_* tools, but the name and description are clear enough.

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 says this is the web equivalent of get_screen and more reliable than screenshots, guiding when to use it (for reading web content). But it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like chrome_javascript or other chrome tools, but the context is clear.

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