browser_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns refs like 'e42', which is key behavior, but it does not mention whether the snapshot represents the whole page or a specific element, nor any limitations. Since it is a capture operation, the read-only nature is implied but not explicit, so a moderate score is appropriate.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the key output detail and usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 simple no-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose (capture snapshot) and the practical application (refs for interactions). It could elaborate on what the accessibility snapshot contains, but the current text is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly in most flows.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is effectively 100% (empty schema). The description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no conflicting information.

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 accessibility snapshot and returns refs for use in interaction calls. This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_get_elements, which do not produce reusable refs.

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 implies when to use the tool: before click/type/hover calls, to obtain refs. It provides clear context for usage, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. This aligns with a 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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