get_text

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful trait, 'visible' text (implying hidden/script content is excluded), but says nothing about return format, error behavior when a selector matches nothing, or whether it waits for page load. Substantial behavioral gaps remain.

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, front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the optional scoping variant second. No filler and every clause carries meaning.

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 one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. It is not fully complete, though: the return shape and behavior on no-match or non-visible content are unaddressed, which an agent might need.

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% and the single selector parameter is documented in the schema as an optional CSS selector to scope extraction. The description reinforces this ('element matching a CSS selector') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Get the visible text content of the page' plus an element-scoped variant. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like click, fill, and screenshot. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with any sibling, so it does not reach the top band.

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?

'or of an element matching a CSS selector' implies the two usage modes (whole-page vs scoped), so the alternative paths are implied rather than stated. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over screenshot or open_page, and no exclusions. Adequate but leaves inference to the agent.

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