page_get_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It only states the output type but omits details like dependencies (page must be loaded), potential limitations (hidden text, rendering), or behavior of the tab_id parameter.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds a relevant usage note. No unnecessary words.

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?

The tool is simple (get page text), and with an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values. However, the lack of parameter documentation and behavior details reduces completeness for a tool with one optional parameter and no annotations.

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 input schema has one parameter (tab_id) with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention or explain this parameter, leaving its meaning and usage unclear to the agent.

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 verb (Get) and resource (plain text content of the current page) and specifies that it returns text without HTML tags. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like element_get_text, which could cause confusion about scope.

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 second sentence provides a usage hint ('useful for reading page content without markup'), implying when to use it. But it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., if HTML structure is needed) or alternatives among sibling tools.

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