read_page

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses it returns refs, roles, names, rectangles, and text, and implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention response format, size limits, or rate limits, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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?

Single sentence that front-loads the main action and key outputs. Every word adds value, no redundancy or filler.

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, so description must compensate. It lists returned data (ref, role, name, rectangle, text) but omits structure, ordering, or parameter effects. Adequate but not comprehensive for a tool with no output schema.

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%, yet the description does not explain either parameter (includeText, maxElements). The hint 'plus visible text' vaguely relates to includeText but is insufficient. The description adds no value beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 clearly states it reads the current page and lists specific outputs (interactive elements with ref handles, roles/names, rectangles, visible text). It also implies its role as a prerequisite for actions like clicking/typing, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform actions.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call before clicking or typing by ref', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with other read tools like find or status, but the context is strong.

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