text_clean

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

Given no annotations, the description transparently discloses stripping behavior: dropping scripts, styles, chrome elements, and hidden widgets. It also mentions whitespace collapsing. Missing details on rate limits or auth, but for a read tool this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. Every word adds value, clearly stating input options and stripping behavior. Perfectly concise.

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 description explains the stripping behavior well but does not specify the return format (e.g., plain text with line breaks), error handling, or how the 'best content root' is determined. With no output schema, the agent lacks details on what to expect.

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 coverage is 100%, with descriptions for max_chars and selector. The tool description adds no extra information beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it returns chrome-stripped, JSON-stripped, whitespace-collapsed text from a selector or best content root. It lists specific elements dropped (script, nav, header, etc.), making the purpose distinct from sibling tools like text_main or body.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies usage for cleaned text, but does not compare directly to sibling tools like text_main, body, or extract, leaving the agent to infer the best choice without clear differentiation.

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