get_page_text

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that only innerText is returned, that frames are included, and that output may be truncated around 80k chars per frame—useful behavioral context beyond the tool's name. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but the operation is clearly non-mutating.

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?

A single sentence conveys the core behavior, scope, and a key limitation with no filler. Every word adds value 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?

With one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the caller will receive and its limitations. It could add a note about error behavior or when output might be empty, but the current coverage is sufficient for a simple read operation.

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?

The schema already fully documents the only parameter, tabId, including its source (tabs_context). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 operation—get the visible text of the page (innerText)—and adds clarifying scope details: it includes frames and has a per-frame character cap. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like screenshot or find.

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 implies the tool should be used when an agent needs the visible text content of a page, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as read_page or find. No exclusionary or routing information is provided.

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