Read page

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: truncation at line boundaries with a marker, the ability to recover remaining content by raising max_chars or using a selector, and the warning that content is page-controlled and arrives inside an untrusted-page-content fence. These details materially affect how an agent should handle results.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: core purpose first, then usage context, then practical edge cases, then security handling. No redundancy with the schema, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns, how output can be shaped, how truncation works, how to avoid it, and how to treat the content safely. Given the tool's moderate complexity, this is a complete and self-sufficient description.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the truncation marker and recovery strategy ('raise max_chars or pass a selector for the rest'), and it clarifies selector and only_main_content effects in operational terms. This pushes it above baseline.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Read the active tab' with four concrete output formats (markdown, text, html, links). It also distinguishes itself from surfsky_scrape, making the tool's role immediately clear relative to siblings.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('after surfsky_navigate or surfsky_act to get the page's text') and when to prefer an alternative ('for a URL that needs no clicks or login, surfsky_scrape does the same without a session'). This gives an agent actionable routing guidance.

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