extract_clean_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format (markdown) and that scripts/clutter are stripped, which is useful. However, it omits whether this requires an active session/page, whether it is read-only, and what happens on an empty or non-HTML page.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action and the transformation front-loaded; no filler. It stops short of being exemplary only because there is no additional routing or prerequisite information to round it out.

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?

For a low-complexity read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. It still leaves open the required page/session state and whether navigation must precede extraction, which an agent would need when picking between this and the accessibility-tree sibling.

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 sole parameter (session_id, default 'default') is documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the baseline is 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting and there is little to explain.

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 ('Extract') and resource ('cleaned, semantic markdown text from current page'), plus the transformation applied (stripping scripts and clutter). It implicitly distinguishes itself from extract_accessibility_tree by naming markdown text as the output, but does not name the sibling 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?

Usage is only implied: the description makes clear this is for pulling readable content off the current page, but it offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. a page must be loaded), and no comparison to the sibling extract_accessibility_tree.

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