get_live_dom_snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool captures a live snapshot, which reasonably implies a non-mutating read operation, but it does not explicitly disclose side effects, prerequisites like an active live inspection session, or the structure of the returned JSON. The 'snapshot' phrasing mitigates some of the ambiguity, but additional behavioral detail would be better.

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 a single concise sentence that immediately states the action, target, and output formats. There is no fluff, repetition, or unnecessary detail, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what is captured, from where, and in which formats. It does not mention the default format or explicitly clarify relationship to sibling tools, but the schema covers the default and the operation is simple enough that the description is largely sufficient.

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 100% description coverage, with the `format` parameter already clearly documented as an enum with a default of 'html'. The tool description largely repeats these format options rather than adding new meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not elevate parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb ('Capture') and clear resource ('current live virtual DOM state snapshot of the active browser page') and explicitly mentions the available output formats. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_dom_state or get_live_dom_subtree, though 'current live' and 'active browser page' imply a distinction.

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 the tool should be used when a current live DOM snapshot is needed, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over the `get_dom_state` or `get_live_dom_subtree` siblings. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so usage context is only implied.

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