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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it executes code asynchronously, requires a specific function structure (async with page parameter), and details the return format (result, logs, errors). It doesn't mention rate limits, auth needs, or destructive effects, but covers execution mechanics adequately for a tool with no annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero waste. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, code type, and target, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 one parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the execution process and return format, compensating for the lack of output schema. However, it doesn't address potential errors or side effects beyond the listed response fields, leaving minor gaps for a code execution tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by emphasizing the code must be 'Playwright JS' and executed 'against the current page', providing context beyond the schema's technical details. It doesn't elaborate on parameter syntax beyond the example, but enhances understanding of the tool's scope.

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 ('execute') and resource ('custom Playwright JS code') with the target ('against the current page'). It distinguishes from siblings like get-context or get-screenshot by focusing on code execution rather than retrieval or capture. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from init-browser in terms of browser lifecycle management.

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 usage for executing custom code on a page, suggesting it's for dynamic interactions beyond simple data fetching. No explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives like get-full-dom for static content or prerequisites (e.g., requires an initialized browser). The context is clear but lacks specific exclusions or named alternatives.

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

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 states the tool's purpose and deprecation status but lacks details about what 'full DOM' includes (e.g., structure, limitations), performance implications, or error handling. The description adds some context (deprecation) but doesn't fully compensate for the missing annotation coverage.

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 with just two sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: the first states the tool's function, and the second provides critical usage guidance. There is zero wasted text, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose immediately clear.

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 has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate context for a simple, deprecated tool. It clearly explains what the tool does and why it shouldn't be used, which is sufficient for its complexity level. However, it could be more complete by explaining what 'full DOM' entails or linking to documentation for the replacement tool.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage guidance. This meets the baseline expectation for tools without parameters.

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 specific action ('Get the full DOM') and the target resource ('of the current page'), providing a complete verb+resource combination. It also explicitly distinguishes from its sibling 'get-context' by marking itself as deprecated and recommending the alternative, which enhances clarity about its role relative to other tools.

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 explicit guidance on when not to use this tool ('Deprecated, use get-context instead'), directly naming the alternative sibling tool. This gives clear, actionable advice for tool selection, helping the agent avoid deprecated functionality in favor of the recommended option.

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

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 mentions the tool captures 'all visible content' but doesn't specify details like whether it requires an active browser session, how it handles dynamic content, potential performance impacts, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with web pages.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more concise by avoiding the parenthetical elaboration, which adds minor verbosity.

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 likely complexity in capturing web page snapshots, the description is insufficient. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral details, it fails to provide enough context for effective use. It doesn't explain what 'complete snapshot' entails, how it differs from siblings, or what the agent should expect as a result, leaving critical 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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't add unnecessary parameter details, aligning with the empty input schema. A baseline score of 4 is applied as it doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Get a complete snapshot') and resources ('page including all visible content'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-full-dom' or 'get-text-snapshot', which likely serve similar but distinct purposes.

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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool, only mentioning it's 'for understanding the full context'. It doesn't specify when to choose this over alternatives like 'get-text-snapshot' or 'get-screenshot', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (gets a snapshot with annotations) but lacks details on behavioral traits such as performance characteristics, error handling, or whether it requires specific browser states. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and context without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with key information ('Get a snapshot focused on interactive elements') and appropriately sized for its complexity.

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 has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and its intended use ('for UI automation'), but it lacks details on output format, behavioral constraints, or how it differs from siblings. This leaves gaps in understanding for effective agent 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate. A baseline score of 4 is applied since there are no parameters to document, and the description doesn't add unnecessary details.

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's purpose: 'Get a snapshot focused on interactive elements (buttons, links, inputs) with annotated screenshot for UI automation.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('snapshot'), and scope ('interactive elements'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-full-snapshot' or 'get-screenshot' beyond mentioning 'focused on interactive elements.'

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 usage context ('for UI automation') and suggests when to use it (when needing interactive elements), but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get-full-snapshot' or 'get-screenshot.' No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage somewhat open to interpretation.

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

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 states what the tool does but lacks details on traits like whether it requires a browser session to be active, if it captures the entire viewport or a specific area, potential delays or failures, or the format of the output (e.g., image data, file path). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 zero waste—it directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity (capturing a screenshot likely involves browser state and output handling), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like dependencies on an active page or what the output contains, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for 0 params, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('screenshot of the current page'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get-full-dom' or 'get-context', but the specificity of 'screenshot' provides inherent distinction. This is not a tautology of the name and is appropriately specific.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-full-dom' (which might provide DOM structure) or 'get-context' (which might provide textual context). It implies usage when a visual capture is needed, but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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

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 states the tool 'gets all text content' but does not specify behavioral traits such as performance characteristics (e.g., speed, pagination), error handling, or whether it requires specific page states (e.g., loaded page). This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get all text content') and specifies the scope ('from the page') and use cases ('for reading and content extraction'). Every word contributes to understanding without waste, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (simple text extraction with no parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on output format (e.g., structured text, raw string) or behavioral context, which could be important for an agent to use it effectively in varied scenarios.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing on the tool's purpose instead. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as it avoids unnecessary details and adds value by clarifying the tool's intent.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('get all text content') and resources ('from the page'), specifying content types like headings, paragraphs, and lists. It distinguishes the tool by focusing on text extraction for reading, but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like get-full-dom or get-full-snapshot, which might also retrieve text content.

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 usage for 'reading and content extraction,' suggesting when to use this tool (e.g., for text analysis). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among sibling tools (e.g., vs. get-full-dom for full DOM or get-screenshot for visual capture), leaving usage context partially inferred.

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

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 states the action ('Initialize a browser') but doesn't explain what this entails—whether it launches a new browser instance, reuses an existing one, requires specific permissions, has side effects like opening windows, or what happens on failure. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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 complexity of initializing a browser (which could involve launching processes, handling errors, or managing sessions) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, potential errors, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable 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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'url' parameter fully documented in the schema as 'The URL to navigate to'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as URL format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score 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 action ('Initialize a browser') and the target resource ('with a URL'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-screenshot' or 'get-full-dom' which might also involve browser operations, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself from alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-screenshot' or 'get-full-dom'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a browser session first) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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