browser_snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses token-saving behaviors like /url line removal and data: URL collapsing, and implies a read-only operation via 'Return'. It does not describe the output shape or whether the snapshot is limited to interactive elements, but the ARIA snapshot concept is reasonably self-explanatory.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the tool's output and token-saving behavior, the second explains exactly how to use the returned refs. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain the returned snapshot and its purpose. It does mention refs and the distilled nature of the snapshot, but it does not cover the exact output layout, when to prefer this over text/HTML alternatives, or edge cases like maxLength truncation behavior beyond the schema.

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 parameters maxLength and includeUrls are already documented. The description adds context about token efficiency but does not provide new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies a distinct resource: a distilled AI-oriented ARIA snapshot. It also names concrete transformations (dropping /url lines, collapsing data: URLs), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_get_visible_text or browser_get_visible_html.

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?

It gives a clear downstream usage instruction: use [ref=eN] values with browser_click/fill/type/hover/press/wait_for. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives such as browser_get_visible_text, browser_find, or browser_evaluate.

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