get_text

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, and it does indicate a read operation returning visible text. However, it does not disclose behavior when the selector matches no element or multiple elements, whether it waits for the element, or how whitespace/hidden content is normalized.

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 entire definition is one concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word 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?

The description is adequate for a simple getter and the output schema covers return values, but it leaves out failure behavior and whether the element must already exist. Given sibling tools like wait_for_element and is_element_visible, an agent would benefit from knowing whether get_text is synchronous and what happens on no match.

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?

With no schema description coverage, the description is the only source of parameter meaning, and it usefully clarifies that 'selector' is a CSS selector used to match an element. The role of the single required parameter is explicit, though details like first-match or empty-result behavior are absent.

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 states a specific action ('Get') and resource ('visible text of an element matched by a CSS selector'), clearly separating it from sibling tools like get_title, get_page_source, and assert_text. Even without a title, an agent can infer exactly what this tool returns.

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 get_text versus assert_text, wait_for_element, or is_element_visible. The description implies a usage pattern but never states prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives.

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