firefox_read_page

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: it discloses shadow-root coverage, warns that page content is untrusted, notes that sensitive field values are omitted, and names the returned snapshotId and references. It falls short of a 5 because it does not explain truncation behavior or how maxChars affects the snapshot.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by trust, security, and return-value notes. There is no wasted wording, and each sentence contributes useful information.

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?

The description covers purpose, trust, sensitive-data handling, and return artifacts, which is helpful given the lack of an output schema. However, it leaves the input parameters undocumented and does not route the agent to alternatives or explain access prerequisites, which are significant gaps for a tool with three parameters and many browsing siblings.

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 carry the burden of explaining the three parameters, but it does not mention tabId, frameId, or maxChars at all. The phrase 'document or frame' loosely hints at frame targeting, but it gives no guidance on required tabId, frame selection, or character limits.

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: reads visible text and semantic element references from a document or frame, including open shadow roots. This is clear enough for an agent to understand the tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like firefox_inspect, firefox_find, or firefox_context.

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 implies usage by saying it returns references for actions, but it does not state when to use this tool versus firefox_inspect, firefox_find, firefox_screenshot, or firefox_context. No exclusions or prerequisites are given beyond the word 'authorized'.

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