browser_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that frame-hosted elements get prefixed refs, shadow DOM elements appear as plain eN refs, and enrich appends a DOM map. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or other constraints, but it covers key traits.

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 and front-loads the main purpose. It uses clear bullet points for additional details. It is slightly lengthy but each sentence adds value.

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 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the return value (ARIA tree with refs, enriched DOM map) but fails to explain the session_id and depth parameters, leaving gaps in completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the enrich parameter in detail but provides no information about session_id or depth, leaving two parameters undocumented.

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 page's ARIA accessibility tree with ref handles, which is the primary way to 'see' a page. It distinguishes from siblings by explaining its role for interaction via refs and mentions enrich mode for JS-heavy sites.

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 explains when to use the tool (primary method for seeing a page and getting actionable handles) and when to use enrich=True (when ARIA tree collapses). It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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