browser_page_text_by_tab_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the key side-effect behavior (no tab switching) and the return content ('full visible text content'), which is genuinely useful. It omits any mention of truncation/size limits, hidden vs visible element treatment, or iframe handling for a potentially large read.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the parameter, then the return value, with no filler sentences. The Args block restates the schema slightly, but the added sourcing hint justifies it.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, input sourcing, non-switching behavior, and return content. Only the edge cases of very large pages (truncation) are unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains tab_id's meaning and tells the agent where to obtain valid IDs (browser_tabs). That is more than the bare 'Tab Id' property name in the schema provides.

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 and resource ('Get page text') plus a scope qualifier ('from a specific tab by ID without switching to it') that meaningfully separates it from a plain active-tab text read. It stops short of naming the sibling it contrasts with (browser_page_text / browser_switch_tab), so the distinction must be inferred.

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?

Implies when to use it – when you want text without changing the active tab – and points at browser_tabs as the source of tab IDs. There is no explicit statement of when NOT to use it, nor a named alternative for the active-tab case.

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