browser_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only the promotional claim that it is 'better than screenshot' — no information about return format, snapshot size, or the interaction with the active session that the annotations do not already imply.

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?

A single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and no padding. The trailing comparative clause is useful for routing, though it is phrased as an unsupported opinion rather than an operational distinction.

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 low-complexity, zero-required-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and annotations covering safety, the definition is close to sufficient. The main gap is that there is no output schema and the description never indicates what a snapshot returns, which is the one thing an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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 100%, with depth, filename and sessionId each documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about these parameters (e.g. default depth, markdown output implications), so the schema carries the full burden and baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('capture accessibility snapshot of the current page'), which is unambiguous and distinct from the visual sibling browser_take_screenshot, which it names. It does not, however, describe what the snapshot contains (roles, names, tree structure), leaving the resource only partially characterized.

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?

'this is better than screenshot' implicitly routes the agent away from browser_take_screenshot, so a preferred alternative is signaled. But there is no explicit condition for when this tool is appropriate versus when a screenshot is actually needed (e.g. visual rendering, layout), and no mention of prerequisites like an active page session.

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