browser_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not specify whether 'text content' includes hidden text, how dynamic content is handled, or whether the result is the rendered or raw text, leaving important behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 description is only six words, front-loaded with the action and target. Every word is meaningful, with no redundant detail or filler, making it appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool.

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?

Although the tool is simple and parameterless, the description is minimal. It lacks any mention of return value format, edge cases, or relation to browser_snapshot, leaving some ambiguity. It is minimally viable but would benefit from clarifying what exactly 'text content' entails.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema has 100% coverage (empty properties). The baseline for zero-param tools is 4, and the description correctly implies the tool operates on the 'current page' without requiring additional configuration.

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 a clear verb 'Get' and specifies the resource 'the text content of the current page,' making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browser_screenshot (visual capture) and browser_evaluate (JavaScript execution) by focusing on text extraction.

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 about when to use this tool versus browser_snapshot or other browser sibling tools. The description only states the function, leaving the agent to infer when text content is preferred over alternative capture methods.

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