browser_markdown

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one important trait — the 80KB output cap — which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about which tab is targeted by default, what happens on truncation, or whether this is a read-only operation.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the size constraint. Nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter documentation. The description omits the return format, default tab behavior, and how the 80KB cap is applied, leaving real gaps for a tool the agent must call blind.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints at the selector parameter's meaning ('selector subtree') but leaves tab_id completely unexplained — the agent cannot tell whether null means the active tab or something else.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Convert the page (or a selector subtree) to Markdown' tells the agent exactly what the output is. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like browser_page_text, browser_readability, or browser_html, which an agent would also consider for extracting page content.

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 when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives, despite several sibling tools (browser_page_text, browser_readability, browser_html, browser_dom) that overlap in purpose. The agent must infer selection from the tool name alone.

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