browser_get_tab_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It successfully discloses the return structure (page title, URL, text) and the tool's disabled status, but omits safety profile information (e.g., whether the extraction is read-only or has side effects) that would typically be covered by annotations.

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 compact at four sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the '[Disabled]' status, follows with the core action, specifies returns, and closes with usage rationale. Every sentence earns its place.

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 lack of output schema, the description adequately compensates by detailing the return structure (title, URL, content). It addresses the tool's disabled state and provides sufficient context for the 3 parameters. For a read-only extraction tool, this is complete enough despite missing formal safety annotations.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds practical usage context for the selector parameter ('scope extraction to a specific section') but does not elaborate on tabId or maxLength beyond the schema definitions.

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 extracts 'visible text content' (distinguishing it from browser_get_page_html) and mentions it operates without 'custom JavaScript' (distinguishing it from browser_execute_script). The '[Disabled]' prefix, while unusual, provides critical status context. It specifies the return values (title, URL, text content).

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 implied usage context ('Useful for understanding page content without writing custom JavaScript'), suggesting when to prefer this over scripting. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or direct comparisons to sibling alternatives like browser_get_page_html.

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