browser_get_text

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds the useful nuance that only 'visible text' is returned, but it omits truncation behavior for maxChars, handling of missing selectors, and default selector behavior, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 sentence with no wasted words, and the core resource is front-loaded. It is arguably too thin, but as a pure conciseness measure it is efficient and well-structured.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description leaves key behaviors unspecified: what happens when selector is omitted (whole page?), how maxChars truncation works, and failure behavior when a selector matches nothing. Annotations cover safety, but the description is insufficient for the agent to invoke it confidently.

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 compensate. It clarifies that the selector is a CSS selector, but says nothing about the maxChars parameter, leaving one of two parameters undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 resource ('visible text') and its two scopes ('page or of an element'), making clear what kind of content is returned. It lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from siblings like browser_snapshot or browser_evaluate, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_snapshot or browser_evaluate. The phrase 'page or of an element (CSS selector)' hints at two modes but provides no conditions or preferences for selecting between them or among siblings.

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