browser_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: compact defaults, depth limits, caps, redaction, and viewport scoping. It also notes that passing mode='full' skips compacting. It does not discuss performance or auth, but for a browser tool these are standard.

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 compact—only three sentences. The first defines the core purpose, the second lists compact defaults, and the third provides a key usage guideline. Every sentence is essential and front-loaded.

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 9 parameters, high schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the output (accessibility tree with refs/boxes) and how to apply it. The lack of output schema is mitigated by the clear purpose and usage hints. Minor gaps exist (e.g., what happens when store=false), but overall completeness is good.

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 coverage is high (89%), so parameters are well-documented. The description adds value by summarizing defaults and advising on mode usage ('Pass mode='full' only when...'). It also clarifies output usage ('Use refs for browser_click/browser_type'), which goes beyond schema definitions.

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 captures an 'ARIA-flavored accessibility tree with stable refs and pixel boxes', distinguishing it from visual captures like browser_screenshot or text extraction. It also references sibling tools browser_snapshot_node and browser_snapshot_query for drilldown.

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 specifies default behavior (compact, viewport-only, redacted, depth-limited, 12KB cap) and advises when to use mode='full'. It also explains that refs in the snapshot are used for browser_click/browser_type, guiding post-capture actions. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like browser_screenshot for visual needs.

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