browser_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses compact vs detailed output, iframe inlining, and stable references, but does not explicitly mention side effects or permissions. Still, it adds meaningful behavioral 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 structured with clear sections (Purpose, Constraints, Example) and is concise. It front-loads the core purpose and uses compact phrasing, though the ellipsis suggests possible truncation.

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 tool's 8 optional parameters and output schema, the description covers most functionality, including narrowing/expanding options. However, it omits a full explanation of the session parameter and lacks alternative tool guidance, leaving some 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 description explains the effects of compact, detailed, interactive, include_urls, depth, selector, and implies inline_iframes. Session is shown in the example but not explicitly described. Since schema coverage is 0%, this compensation is valuable.

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 tool captures the page's accessibility tree as compact text with stable element references, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling browser tools by focusing on the accessibility tree and element references.

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 provides parameter constraints but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when to use this tool versus siblings. It implies usage for capturing snapshots, but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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