browser_snapshot

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, indicating this is a safe, non-destructive operation that may return unpredictable results. The description adds value by specifying it captures 'accessibility snapshot' (implying structured accessibility data) and compares it to screenshots, giving context about what kind of data is returned. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 with just one sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and key comparison. Every word earns its place: 'Capture accessibility snapshot' defines the action, 'of the current page' provides context, and 'this is better than screenshot' adds valuable differentiation. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 the tool has no parameters, rich annotations (readOnly, openWorld, non-destructive), but no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but could better explain what an 'accessibility snapshot' returns. It mentions it's 'better than screenshot' which hints at richer data, but doesn't specify format or content. For a tool with behavioral complexity implied by openWorldHint, more detail about output expectations would be helpful.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is correct for a zero-parameter tool. It focuses on what the tool does rather than inputs, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 purpose: 'Capture accessibility snapshot of the current page' specifies the verb (capture) and resource (accessibility snapshot). It distinguishes from sibling 'browser_take_screenshot' by mentioning 'this is better than screenshot', though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling. The purpose is specific but could be more precise about what an 'accessibility snapshot' entails.

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 usage context by comparing to screenshot ('this is better than screenshot'), suggesting this tool should be used when accessibility data is needed rather than visual capture. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scan_page' or provide clear exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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