kloakt_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses returning compact nodes with specific fields, and the behavior of the interactive flag. It does not mention side effects or auth, but as a read-only snapshot, this is adequate.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences. Every word adds value—no filler or tautology. The structure immediately states the tool's core purpose, then details return fields and usage hints.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description effectively covers the return format by listing fields. It positions the tool in the agent's workflow (vision substitute). However, it lacks details on error handling or page load limitations, keeping it from a 5.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds context like 'agent-vision substitute' and explains interactive returns 'only the actionable elements', enriching the schema. It partially repeats schema but adds meaningful usage guidance.

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 gets an 'indexed accessibility/structure tree of a page' as a 'vision substitute', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like screenshot (visual) and scrape (raw content).

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 advises using it 'to understand page layout and decide what to act on', and explains the interactive flag for actionable elements. It implies usage when vision is unavailable, but lacks explicit when-not or alternative recommendations.

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