boj_browser_read_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reads text content but lacks details on what 'text content' includes (e.g., visible text, hidden elements, formatting), whether it handles errors (e.g., if no page is loaded), or any performance considerations (e.g., speed, size limits). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words or fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Read'), making it easy to understand at a glance, and every part of the sentence contributes to defining the purpose efficiently.

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?

Given the complexity of a browser tool (which can involve dynamic content and errors), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'text content' entails, how it's returned (e.g., as plain text, structured data), or potential limitations (e.g., for JavaScript-heavy pages). This leaves the agent with incomplete information to use the tool effectively in varied contexts.

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 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline score of 4 is applied as it meets the requirement for a parameterless tool without introducing confusion.

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 action ('Read') and resource ('text content of the current page'), making the tool's purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling browser tools like 'boj_browser_screenshot' (which captures visual content) or 'boj_browser_execute_js' (which runs scripts), leaving some ambiguity about its specific scope within the browser context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whether it's for extracting visible text versus full HTML, or how it relates to other browser tools like 'boj_browser_navigate' (for page loading) or 'boj_browser_click' (for interaction). There's no mention of prerequisites, like needing a page to be loaded first, which could lead to misuse.

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