browser_get_text

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that only visible text is extracted and that output is truncated with a truncated=True flag when an upper limit is exceeded. This adds meaningful behavioral context not present in the annotations, though the exact limit is not specified.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the truncation caveat expressed in one clause. There is no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description covers the core operation and the key edge case (truncation). It does not detail the return format beyond the truncated flag, but this is minor for such a simple tool.

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, so the schema already fully covers argument semantics; the description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter information is required.

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 uses a specific verb ('추출한다' / extracts) and a precise resource ('현재 페이지의 보이는 텍스트' / current page's visible text), distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser_screenshot (visual capture) and browser_navigate (navigation). The function's scope is unambiguous.

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 description clearly implies this tool is for retrieving the visible text of the current page, which gives an agent a clear context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose statement itself is sufficiently directive.

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