browser_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently explains the streaming behavior: buffering, incremental updates, and dropping of oldest content when overflow occurs. This goes beyond the basic purpose and gives useful operational details, though it omits the exact return format and edge cases.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose, then details streaming modes in a structured way. Each sentence adds meaningful operational content without unnecessary fluff.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers core reading behavior and streaming modes but leaves many parameters unexplained and does not describe return values, error handling, or interaction with the broader tool set. It is incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 for undocumented parameters. It only explains wait_stable, follow, and selector implicitly. The remaining 6 parameters (ref, full, task_id, max_chars, stream_id, max_wait_ms) are not described at all, leaving significant meaning gaps for an agent trying to use the tool correctly.

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 reads text content of page elements, with a default to the whole body. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like browser_snapshot or browser_evaluate, which also interact with page 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 explains different modes (wait_stable for one-time full read, follow for incremental tracking) and the default behavior when no selector is given. It implies when to use these options but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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