browser_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions extraction but lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, error handling (e.g., if selector fails), or output format (e.g., plain text vs. structured). For a tool interacting with a browser, this leaves critical gaps in understanding its operation.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('extract raw text content') and includes optional scoping. There's no wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of browser interactions and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error conditions, performance implications, or return values, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool effectively in a dynamic environment.

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 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'CSS selector to scope text extraction'). The description adds minimal value beyond this, as it only implies the 'selector' parameter without explaining syntax or use cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('extract') and resource ('raw text content') with optional scoping ('from the page or a specific element'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like browser_snapshot (which might capture visual content) or browser_evaluate (which might execute scripts), leaving room for ambiguity in a crowded toolset.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., browser_snapshot for screenshots, browser_evaluate for script execution), there's no indication of scenarios where text extraction is preferred or excluded, such as for accessibility vs. visual rendering tasks.

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