browser_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe, read-only operation. The description adds the fact that it captures an accessibility snapshot and is 'better than screenshot', hinting at a structured output, but it does not describe potential behavioral details like response size or whether the snapshot reflects dynamic DOM changes. No contradiction exists, but the additional value is limited.

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 very short and front-loaded with the verb, making it efficient. However, it uses a comma splice and the comparative 'better' is vague, slightly reducing credibility. It is still concise and avoids unnecessary 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?

There is no output schema, and the description only says it captures an 'accessibility snapshot' without describing the return structure. However, the schema parameters (e.g., 'target' referencing 'the page snapshot') and annotations provide enough context for an agent to understand basic invocation and safety. It is minimally complete but lacks crucial output format details.

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?

All four parameters (boxes, depth, target, filename) have thorough descriptions in the schema, providing 100% coverage. The description itself does not mention any parameters or add meaning beyond the schema, so it sits at the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specifies the action ('Capture accessibility snapshot') and the resource ('current page'), and explicitly positions it against the screenshot sibling by claiming it is 'better than screenshot'. This distinguishes it from browser_take_screenshot. However, 'accessibility snapshot' is not defined, leaving some ambiguity about what the output contains, so it does not reach a perfect 5.

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 only usage guidance is the comparative claim 'this is better than screenshot', which implies use over the screenshot tool. It does not specify scenarios where it should not be used or mention alternatives like browser_evaluate or browser_find. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance, so it scores a 3.

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