wb_get_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses a key behavior ('visible page text') and references a familiar tool for behavioral grounding, but does not mention potential side effects, return format, or limitations (e.g., dynamic content, maxChars). This is minimal but not absent.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences. Each sentence adds value—the first defines the action, the second provides a comparative usage hint. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple with no required parameters and no output schema, so the description is mostly sufficient. However, it does not explicitly state what the return value looks like (e.g., plain text string) or any edge-case behaviors, leaving some ambiguity for an agent. This is adequate but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('session' and 'maxChars') already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Extract') and resource ('visible page text'), making the tool's function immediately obvious. It explicitly contrasts with 'full snapshot' and references 'Claude get_page_text', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like wb_snapshot.

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 provides a clear usage context: it is better than a full snapshot for articles, implying use when text content is needed rather than page structure. While it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or list alternative tools beyond snapshot, the comparison gives a strong hint of appropriate scenarios.

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