read_page

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must inform the agent about side effects and behavior. It discloses that 'sensitive input values are omitted', which is a valuable behavioral trait. However, it does not mention whether this is a read-only operation (likely safe, but not stated) or any other side effects, so the burden is only partially met.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with essential information. The key point about omitting sensitive inputs is front-loaded after the main purpose. It is efficient and avoids redundancy, though it could benefit from a brief mention of parameters, but given the schema has defaults, this is acceptable.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (only two optional parameters, no output schema), the description is largely adequate. It covers the core purpose and a key behavioral nuance (omission of sensitive values). However, it does not clarify what 'compact' means in terms of output format or whether it returns plain text or structured data, which could be useful for an agent deciding how to use the result.

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 schema provides parameter names, types, defaults, and constraints but no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds meaning by implying that the parameters control the snapshot's scope (e.g., 'maxChars' likely limits the returned text length, 'tabId' selects the tab). Despite not specifying exact semantics, the description helps interpret the parameters beyond the bare schema.

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 states a specific verb ('read') and resource ('page'), and notes it is a 'compact accessibility-oriented snapshot', which distinguishes it from navigation or interaction tools. It clearly indicates what the tool does, but does not explicitly list sibling tools for differentiation beyond the general phrasing.

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 that it is used to read the content of the active tab, which is a clear use case compared to siblings like click or open_url. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., when you need a lightweight read vs. a full page). The context of 'active tab' is clear, but exclusions are absent.

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