Get Text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'whole page' scope, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose nuances like whether text is innerText or textContent, or waiting behavior. With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 entire description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple read operation.

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 rich input schema, output schema availability, and safety annotations, the description is sufficient. It clearly states the tool's purpose and scope. However, it does not mention the ability to target shadow DOM/frames or accessibility targets, which are documented in the schema but not in the description. This minor gap prevents a 5.

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 the selector parameter fully documented (CSS/XPath, empty means whole page, text: prefix). The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'text' and scope 'element or whole page', clearly distinguishing it from sibling getters like element_get_attribute, element_get_property, and element_get_html. The scope is explicit, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like element_get_html or element_get_attribute. It simply states the function without mentioning exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the resource type.

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