browser_readability

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose real behavioral detail: the scoring heuristic and the deterministic fallback chain (densest section/div, then body). It omits whether tab_id=null targets the active tab and what happens when no article is found, so the disclosure is partial rather than complete.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and output before the implementation detail. The heuristic explanation is slightly verbose but earns its place by explaining the fallback behavior.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully lists the returned fields, but it leaves the required parameter semantics unexplained and gives no guidance on failure/fallback-to-body edge cases an agent might need. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% and the sole parameter (tab_id) is undocumented in both schema and description. The description says nothing about which tab is read, what null means, or default behavior, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (the main article on the page), and enumerates the returned fields (title, byline, clean text). This clearly distinguishes it from generic sibling readers like browser_page_text or browser_html, even though it never names those alternatives.

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 is entirely about how the heuristic works, not when to choose this tool over browser_page_text, browser_markdown, or browser_dom. There is no condition, exclusion, or alternative named, leaving the agent to infer usage from the sibling list alone.

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