browser_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return envelope and that serialno comes from list_devices, but it stays silent on error behavior, invalid selectors, non-existent elements, and whether it waits for the element. This is adequate for a simple read operation but not rich.

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 tightly packaged: one purpose line, two one-line args, and one return line. No filler; the Args/Returns structure makes it easy to scan.

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 simple 2-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description covers the operation, both parameters, the origin of serialno, and the return shape. It lacks edge-case behavior and explicit sibling differentiation, but nothing essential to a basic call is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, yet the description adds meaningful semantics for both required parameters: serialno is tied to list_devices and selector is identified as a CSS selector. This goes beyond the raw names in the schema, though it stops short of examples or selector scoping details.

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 opens with a concrete operation — 'Get an element's text content' — giving a clear verb and resource. It is readily distinguishable by purpose from nearby browser tools like browser_attribute or browser_state, though it doesn't explicitly name the distinction.

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 intended use is implied by the one-liner: call this when you need the text content of an element in the browser session. It does not, however, state when to prefer browser_attribute or browser_state, nor does it give exclusions, so guidance beyond the obvious is absent.

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