browser_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the return form (accessibility tree rendered as text) and that it targets the active tab, which is the key behavioral fact. It says nothing about output size, whether element references are included for clicking/typing, or any truncation/pagination behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by when it is best used. No filler.

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 no-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool the description covers the essentials of purpose and return format, but omits how elements are identified in the tree (which matters because it is recommended for locating click/type targets) and any size or truncation caveats.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain. Baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly implies no arguments are needed.

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 resource (accessibility tree of the target tab) and output form (as text). The term 'accessibility tree' distinguishes it implicitly from browser_html, browser_text and browser_screenshot, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Best for locating elements to click or type into' gives an implied usage context, but there are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives among the many close siblings (browser_html, browser_text, browser_screenshot). An agent must infer when to prefer those over this.

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