read_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: default filter value, iframe crossing with fN: ref prefixes, and the difference between filter modes. 'List' implies read-only, though side effects are not explicitly ruled out.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by filter behavior and iframe handling. No unnecessary words.

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?

For a simple read tool, the description covers purpose, filtering, and iframe behavior. It misses maxItems semantics and return format details, but the core usage is clear. Without an output schema, a bit more on return structure could help, but it is sufficient for most calls.

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 only 33% (tabId), so the description must compensate. It explains the filter parameter in detail (default and modes) but says nothing about maxItems, leaving that parameter undocumented. Partial compensation for the schema gap.

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 ('List') and resource ('page elements with refs for click/type/form_input'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_page_text or find. The filter explanation further clarifies the tool's scope.

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?

It implies when to use it: before interactions like click/type/form_input, to obtain refs. It also explains filter modes and default behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it provides clear context without exclusions.

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