browser_snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool returns a list of interactive elements with references, implying a read operation. However, it does not disclose if any state changes occur, authentication needs, or potential side effects. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence provides value: the first defines the action and output, the second explains how to interact with the output. No unnecessary words.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return format (list with references). It also links to the next step (using browser_click). It covers the essential aspects for usage. However, it could mention error conditions or requirements (e.g., page must be loaded).

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'page_id', with a description. The tool description adds the default behavior ('if not specified, use the current page'), which provides extra context beyond the schema. This justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 retrieves an ARIA accessibility snapshot and returns interactive elements with numbered references. This distinguishes it from siblings like browser_click (clicking) and browser_type (typing). However, it could more explicitly contrast with other browser tools.

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 provides a usage hint: after getting the snapshot, use browser_click(ref) to click elements. But it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention scenarios where it should not be used. The guidance is minimal.

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