browser_snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns interactive elements with ref IDs, that full mode includes text context, and that it is faster/cheaper than screenshots. It does not mention if it captures only visible content or entire page, but overall good disclosure.

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 concise (about 10 lines) and well-structured with bullet points and examples. It front-loads the main purpose and avoids fluff.

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 simplicity (3 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers what the tool does, how to use it, parameter details, and comparison to siblings. With output schema present, return values need not be explained.

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 fully explains all three parameters: page_id (target page), full (boolean with default false, and behavior difference), and max_length (default 12000). It adds meaning beyond schema by explaining what the parameters do.

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 it captures the accessibility tree, specifies it is the primary way to understand pages, and distinguishes from browser_screenshot by being faster, cheaper, and more reliable. It also notes it returns ref IDs for interaction.

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 explicitly says to call this before interacting with a page and to prefer it over browser_screenshot for deciding what to click. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for visual layout).

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