browser_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that only *visible* text is returned (excluding hidden nodes, scripts, and styles), but says nothing about behavior on selector mismatch, truncation, whitespace normalization, or whether the call is a no-side-effect read.

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?

Single sentence with zero filler and the core action front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the gaps in the other dimensions.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, so the description must explain return shape — and it does not (string vs. list of text nodes, whether element boundaries are preserved). For a content-extraction tool with overlapping siblings, this leaves the agent guessing.

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% — the single parameter is an undescribed string. The description only establishes that the selector is optional and scopes the read; it never says whether it is a CSS selector, XPath, or text matcher, nor what the default scope is when omitted.

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 verb and resource ("Read the page's visible text") plus the optional scoping mechanism, so an agent knows exactly what operation this performs. It stops short of distinguishing itself from close siblings such as browser_snapshot and browser_evaluate, which also surface 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?

There is no statement of when to use this instead of browser_snapshot (structured page state) or browser_evaluate (arbitrary JS) when extracting content. The phrase "optionally scoped to a selector" hints at a narrowing use case but gives no explicit conditions or prerequisites such as requiring a page to be loaded first.

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