read_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses that all elements (including non-visible ones) are returned by default, the 50000-character output limit, truncation at a line boundary, and the note about full size. These are non-obvious behaviors beyond the schema.

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 description is moderately long (about five sentences) but each sentence carries necessary information: what it does, defaults, prerequisites, and output limitations. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and the troubleshooting guidance is relevant and non-redundant.

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?

Given the tool has six parameters, no annotations, and a rich output schema, the description covers all key operational aspects: purpose, default behavior, prerequisite steps, output size limits, and mitigation strategies. Return values are already represented by the output schema, so not repeating them is appropriate.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining practical parameter usage: default depth, default max_chars, truncation behavior, and how depth/ref_id can narrow focus when output is too large. It also clarifies the filter default ('all elements').

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get an accessibility tree representation of elements on the page.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_page_text by emphasizing how screen readers see the page content, not just raw text.

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 provides clear usage guidance: it tells the agent to use tabs_context first if there's no valid tab ID, and offers strategies for when output is too large (increase max_chars or use depth/ref_id). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the accessibility-tree framing makes the intended use clear.

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