read_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool reads the page and returns a summary, which implies a non-destructive read operation. However, it does not disclose whether the read affects the page state (e.g., by executing scripts), or any prerequisites (e.g., page must be loaded). The description is straightforward but lacks deeper behavioral detail; since it's a simple read, a 3 is fair.

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 sentence that packs all relevant information: what it reads, and what it returns. Zero filler, perfectly front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent exactly what the output is (length, title, metadata). Missing details like edge cases (e.g., what if page fails to load) are not critical for a simple read. The description is sufficient for an agent to decide and invoke.

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 schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds meaning by clarifying what data will be returned (DOM HTML length, title, metadata summary), which is useful for an agent to anticipate the output. Since there are no parameters to document, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 clear verb ('read') and specifies the resource ('the full page') with explicit scope: 'DOM HTML length + title + metadata summary'. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_text (which extracts text) and dom_analysis (which analyzes DOM), making it a unique read-only page summary tool.

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 usage (when you need a quick page overview), but it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over siblings like get_text or dom_analysis. No exclusions or suggested alternatives are provided, so the guidance is only implicit.

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