udemy_read

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

With no annotations supplied, the description must carry the behavioral burden. "Read" implies a non-mutating operation and the mention of numbered elements hints that the output assigns the indices consumed by sibling click/type tools, which is genuinely useful. It does not state what happens if no page is open, whether reading scrolls or navigates, or what the element numbering rules are.

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; the colon efficiently enumerates the returned content types. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and rough return shape adequately. The remaining gap is the linkage between the numbered elements it emits and the indices accepted by udemy_click, which is only hinted at rather than stated.

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 100% and the single optional "element" parameter is documented as "Read only inside this element." The description never mentions the parameter, so it adds nothing beyond the schema; the baseline 3 applies when the schema already does this work.

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?

"Read the current Udemy page" names a specific verb and resource, and the clause about text and numbered buttons/links/fields previews what comes back. It implicitly separates itself from the sibling action tools (click, type, open, close) but never names them or states the contrast 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the inspection step before udemy_click or udemy_type. There is no explicit "use this when..." statement, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. a page must already be open via udemy_open), and no exclusions pointing to udemy_status or udemy_guide.

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