page_look

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is an observation operation and specifies exactly what will be read: URL, title, window size, visible text, and clickable elements. The note that the screen may have changed adds useful situational context.

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 compact and well-structured: it states the main behavior, enumerates subject matter, and closes with practical usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, and there is no repetition or fluff.

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 tool with two optional parameters, a fully documented schema, and no output schema, this description provides sufficient context. It explains why and when to call the tool plus the content of the returned information, so an agent can select and invoke it correctly without missing pieces.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline without providing extra semantic value.

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?

States a verb ('읽는다') and a specific resource: the screen a person is looking at. It also enumerates what is captured — address, title, window size, visible text, and clickable elements — making the tool's read-only role unmistakable relative to sibling action tools like page_click and page_goto.

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 instructs the agent to call this tool first, before deciding what to do, and gives the rationale: the screen may have changed. It clearly articulates when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it.

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