wrave_get_snapshot

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. The word 'snapshot' implies a read-only operation, but this is not explicit. The description reveals what the snapshot contains (title, URL, indexed elements) but does not disclose whether the tab is modified, whether the snapshot is cached, or any other side effects. It adds some context about the return content but stops short of a safety declaration.

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 sentence with no filler. The key action ('Instant page snapshot') is front-loaded, followed by the specific contents (interactive elements, title, URL). Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return data (title, URL, indexed elements). It hints at the indexing scheme (@1, @2) which is useful for later interactions, but it does not explicitly state limitations (e.g., only interactive elements are returned) or prerequisites (e.g., tab must be active). Given the simplicity, the description is nearly complete, but a small gap remains regarding how the snapshot relates to other tools and any constraints on its use.

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 single parameter tab_id is fully described in the schema ('The ID of the tab'), and schema coverage is at 100%. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter, so it does not exceed the baseline. An agent can correctly infer that tab_id must reference an existing tab, but the description offers no extra nuance.

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 returns a page snapshot containing indexed interactive elements, title, and URL. It uses a specific verb ('get') and a specific resource ('snapshot'), and explicitly lists the content, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_dom_tree or 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wrave_get_dom_tree or wrave_get_accessibility_tree. The description does not mention exclusions or conditions that would steer an agent toward or away from this tool, leaving the decision to inference.

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