extract_visible_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose one behavioral trait: browser chrome is filtered by default, which is useful context. However, it does not explain what constitutes 'visible text', how max_lines affects output, or error behavior, leaving gaps.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core action and a key behavioral nuance without redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, which likely covers return values, but the description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a device from list_devices) or provide details on parameter interactions like max_lines. For a simple tool, it is minimally adequate but leaves room for more 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The mention of 'browser chrome filtered by default' indirectly informs the include_controls parameter, but device and max_lines are not described. The schema itself provides no descriptions, so this is insufficient for a 3-parameter tool.

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 tool's function: 'Extract visible text from the current screen' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting 'browser chrome filtered by default', which differentiates it from raw screen-tree or OCR tools.

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 implies when to use the tool (to get visible text from the current screen), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. With siblings like ocr_screen, get_screen_tree, and get_elements, explicit guidance would improve the score.

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