browser_get_text

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying 'visible text' (as opposed to hidden text or raw HTML) and the option to target a specific element ('or one target'). While it does not disclose return format or error behavior, it provides useful scope information beyond the annotation.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('Read') and resource ('visible text'). Every word is purposeful, with no redundancy or filler. It is an ideal example of minimal yet effective description length.

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?

For a simple read operation with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. It adequately explains what the tool does (read visible text) and the target options (page or one element). It does not describe output structure, but this is not required given the simplicity of the tool and the absence of an 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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (pageId, target, sessionId), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add parameter-level detail, but given the schema's completeness, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. No additional compensation is needed.

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 the tool's function: 'Read visible text from the page or one target.' It uses a specific verb ('Read') and identifies the resource ('visible text') and scope ('page or one target'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_snapshot or browser_evaluate, which serve different purposes.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage by stating what it does, but it does not mention alternative tools or exclusion criteria. For example, it does not clarify when one would prefer browser_get_text over browser_snapshot or browser_page_title.

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