browser_accessibility_tree

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the snapshot is 'trimmed' and based on Playwright, which is useful, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, what happens when no element is found, or what the trimming actually omits. This leaves moderate gaps.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and follows with a usage tip, making every word earn its place.

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 that there are 4 optional parameters, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description provides adequate high-level context for invoking the tool in obvious cases. However, it does not clarify the expected selector format, the exact nature of the returned accessibility tree, or the trimming behavior, leaving moderate uncertainty for an agent.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description itself does not describe any of the four parameters. The word 'trimmed' weakly hints at max_nodes/max_text_length/interesting_only, but selector semantics, value formats, and how parameters interact are left entirely to the schema names and defaults. The description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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's function with a specific verb ('Return'), a specific resource ('Playwright accessibility snapshot'), and a scope modifier ('trimmed'). The second sentence ('Best for role/name-driven navigation on dynamic SPAs') further clarifies intent and implicitly distinguishes it from sibling browser tools like browser_read_page or browser_get_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 provides a clear usage context ('Best for role/name-driven navigation on dynamic SPAs'), indicating when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the top criterion.

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