browser_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get page text' without specifying whether it returns visible text, full HTML text, or which elements are included. It also does not mention any read-only nature or potential side effects (though likely none). This leaves ambiguity about the exact behavior and return format.

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 extremely concise at two words, which is appropriate for such a simple tool. It front-loads the action and resource. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as adding 'of the current page' to clarify scope. Still, it earns a high score for efficiency.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core function. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools and does not clarify what 'text' encompasses or the format of the return. An agent could feasibly invoke it correctly, but might be uncertain about expected output. It is adequate but not fully complete in the context of a rich toolset.

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 and the schema is empty (100% coverage). Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics because there are none, and the schema already fully documents the lack of parameters. No additional meaning is required.

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 and resource ('Get page text') that clearly communicates the tool's core function. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like browser_snapshot, browser_observe, or browser_analyze_page, which could also return page text or similar content. Without additional context, an agent might not know which tool to choose among these.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no conditions, exclusions, or examples that help an agent decide between browser_text and other browser read tools. The description simply states what it does without any usage context.

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