browser_snapshot

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral framing of an 'accessibility snapshot' and a quality comparison to screenshots, but it does not disclose what the output actually contains, how large it can be, or that it returns element references (which is only revealed in the parameter schema).

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 sentence with no filler and the core action is front-loaded. The comparative phrase 'this is better than screenshot' is concise but slightly vague, preventing a perfect score.

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, so the description is responsible for clarifying what the tool returns. It only says 'snapshot' without stating it is a textual or markdown accessibility tree; the schema hints at this via the filename and target parameters, but the description alone under-specifies the return format and practical scope.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, all four parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action ('Capture') and the resource ('accessibility snapshot of the current page'), making the tool's basic function evident. It also gestures at differentiation by claiming it is 'better than screenshot', which separates it from browser_take_screenshot, though it does not define what an accessibility snapshot is.

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 implied preference for this tool over screenshots ('this is better than screenshot'), which hints at using it when accessibility/structure is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other siblings like browser_evaluate, nor does it give any exclusions or conditions.

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