Reads a background browser page as text and numbers interactive items for later actions; use the from parameter to continue long pages in parts.
Read the whole page in the background browser as text. Items you can use are numbered, e.g. [12] button "Add to cart"; the numbers stay valid until the page changes. Long pages come in parts: pass from to read on.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| from | No | Character to start at, from the previous part's note |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses text-only output, the [n] item numbering, the critical invariant that numbers stay valid only until the page changes, and paginated reads for long pages. It does not state permissions or whether reads have side effects, but for a read tool the disclosed traits are the operationally important ones.
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?
Three tight sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the numbering convention and pagination rule following in priority order.
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?
With no output schema, the description wisely explains the return shape (numbered text items, multi-part output) rather than leaving it opaque. Minor gap: it doesn't say where the 'previous part's note' appears in the response, though the schema points to it.
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 100% and the single 'from' parameter is already documented as a character offset taken from the previous part. The description reinforces pagination ('Long pages come in parts: pass from to read on') but adds no syntax or sourcing detail beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (read the page in the background browser) and specifies the output form (text). 'Background browser' implicitly distinguishes it from read_screen, but no sibling is named 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?
The numbering scheme implies the tool is a precursor to browser_click/tap, but the description never says when to use this instead of read_screen, browser_screenshot, or screenshot, nor when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.