Page snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a behavioral note about reliability ('cheaper and more reliable than a screenshot') and explains that refs are passed to other tools, which is useful context. It does not describe the exact output structure or potential limitations, but given annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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?

Three sentences with zero fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, the primary use case is stated, and the key concept (refs) is introduced succinctly. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has five optional parameters, all well-documented in the schema. The description explains the core purpose, the output format (ref-tagged), and its integration with other tools. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly. It could mention that the snapshot is a tree structure, but that is not essential.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptive text, so the description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning. The description's mention of refs refers to the output, not parameters. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a 'compact, ref-tagged snapshot' and explicitly contrasts it with screenshots ('cheaper and more reliable than a screenshot'). It distinguishes the primary use case (reading a page) and explains the role of refs, making it immediately clear what this tool does and how it differs from sibling tools like browser_take_screenshot.

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 positions this as 'the primary way to read a page' and contrasts it with screenshots, giving a clear when-to-use signal. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternative read tools like browser_find or browser_snapshot_diff, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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