chrome_get_text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description's one added behavioral fact is that output is truncated, which is real value, but it omits what truncation does to the result (cut-off point, indicator) and whether auth/session state matters.

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?

A single front-loaded parenthetical fragment with zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than deliberate concision.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say what the return value looks like (plain string? object with metadata?), and it only says the text is truncated. Annotations do carry the behavior/safety load, so the tool is callable, but key return-shape information is missing.

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 only 50%: tabId is documented in the schema but maxChars has just a default (40000) with no description, and the description does not compensate for either parameter. The mention of 'truncated' loosely hints at maxChars but gives no units, limits, or behavior when exceeded.

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?

Names the resource and the exact extraction method ('Visible text of a tab (document.body.innerText, truncated)'), so an agent knows this returns rendered visible text rather than HTML or a DOM dump. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like chrome_snapshot, chrome_evaluate, or browser_get_text.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus chrome_snapshot (structure), chrome_screenshot (pixels), or chrome_evaluate (arbitrary JS). The agent must infer the choice from the terse purpose line alone; no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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