browser_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses what the snapshot contains, how text_chas changes output, and that modal_only restricts output to the active dialog/wizard while excluding hidden templates. This gives the agent a solid mental model without claiming side effects that are not evidenced.

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 dense and telegraphic, with the core purpose front-loaded and every segment contributing parameter or workflow knowledge. No fluff or repetition exists; the formatting with newlines reinforces the distinct parameter behaviors.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and four optional params, this description is unusually complete. It covers input semantics, output shape ('numbered interactive elements + text'), and the downstream workflow (browser_set/click by number), so an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, but the description explains all four parameters: focus values, filter_text narrowing, text_chars boundary behaviors, and modal_only semantics. It adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema and fully compensates for the schema's lack of comments.

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 identifies the tool as a page inspection action producing 'numbered interactive elements + text', which is specific enough to separate it from mostly unrelated siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the focus/filter/modal modifiers make the tool's role plain.

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 gives concrete usage context: use modal_only=true for apply wizards, then browser_set/click by number, and use filter_text to find 'Apply'. It does not spell out when to prefer browser_snapshot over sibling tools like browser_screenshot or browser_eval, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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