Get All Text Content from Page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds 'visible' text, which is a useful constraint beyond annotations, but does not detail return format or edge cases. With strong annotations, the description is adequate but not exceptional.

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?

Concise, well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns). Every sentence adds value. No 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?

Lacks output schema, but description explains return is 'All text content found on the page.' For a simple extraction tool, this is fairly complete. Could specify format (e.g., plain text string or list), but annotations provide safety context.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, but the tool description adds value by specifying default behavior for page_name: 'If omitted, first page is used.' This is not in the schema, providing extra guidance.

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?

Clearly states 'Extract all visible text content from a page in a .bsdesign file' – specific verb+resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like bs_generate_layout or bs_get_js by focusing on text extraction.

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?

Provides clear use cases ('reviewing copy, checking placeholder text, auditing content') and implies when it's appropriate. However, does not explicitly exclude cases or mention alternatives among siblings.

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