browser_get_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'visible text content' but does not specify whether hidden elements are included, whitespace handling, iframe support, or whether this is a read-only operation. This lack of detail impairs agent's understanding of side effects and constraints.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 no output schema, the description does not specify return value format (e.g., plain string, stripped tags, or object). It also lacks mention of error conditions. However, for a simple tool with one optional parameter, it is moderately complete.

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% (the only parameter, selector, is described in schema). The tool description adds 'visible text content' but does not further elaborate on parameter semantics (e.g., format, multi-element matching, or CSS selector limitations). Baseline is 3 due to high coverage.

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 clearly states the verb 'get' and resource 'visible text content', and specifies it can target the page or a specific element, distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser_get_html (raw HTML) and browser_evaluate (JS evaluation).

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 implies use for extracting visible text but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_get_html or browser_evaluate. No exclusions or when-not-to-use are mentioned.

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