get_body_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('get') but does not specify whether it returns visible text only, includes hidden elements, waits for page load, or what happens if the body is empty. This minimal disclosure is inadequate for a tool with no structured safety annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and target without any filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, and it is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description conveys the core function, but it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details such as the exact format of the returned text ('textContent' vs. 'innerText') and when it should be preferred over sibling tools. Given no output schema and no annotations, this level of completeness is minimally adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is required because the schema already declares an empty properties object. There is no gap for the description to fill.

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 'get' and a specific resource 'the body text content of the current tab', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_current_tab_info (which retrieves tab metadata) and getSimplifiedDomTree (which retrieves the DOM structure). It is immediately clear what the tool does and how it differs.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites. Sibling tools like getSimplifiedDomTree or get_current_tab_info overlap in purpose, but the description offers no comparison or selection criteria.

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