browser_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the output (ARIA tree with refs) and handling of frames and shadow DOM. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, any restrictions, or response structure, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 succinct, front-loading the main purpose in the first sentence, then adding details on usage and element naming. It avoids redundancy and is well-structured, though it could be slightly more compact.

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 presence of an output schema and two optional parameters, the description covers the core functionality well but lacks details on parameter semantics and output format. It is adequate for a straightforward snapshot tool but has 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?

The description does not explain the parameters 'session_id' and 'depth' beyond their existence in the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should add meaning, but it fails to clarify what depth controls or how session_id is used, providing no additional value.

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, listing actionable elements with roles, names, and refs. It explains its role as the primary way to 'see' a page for interaction, distinguishing it from visual or data extraction tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool browser_snapshot_frame, though it implies full-page capture by mentioning frame-hosted elements.

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 indicates when to use the tool: as the primary way to see a page and to obtain refs for clicking, typing, or hovering. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, though the purpose naturally excludes tools like screenshots or extraction.

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