wavexis_dom_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's mention of 'Side effects: None; read-only' is consistent but redundant. However, it adds value by describing return format (JSON string with keys 'status', 'snapshot', 'documents') and the scope of including iframes and shadow roots, which annotations do not cover.

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: four short sentences covering purpose, alternative, side effects, and return format. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded. No redundant or vague statements.

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's simplicity (one parameter, read-only operation) and the presence of annotations and an output schema (mentioned in description), the description covers all essential aspects: functionality, alternative usage, safety, and return structure. It is fully adequate for an agent to use correctly.

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 already describes the single parameter 'session_id' as 'Active session ID from wavexis_session_open'. The tool description does not add any further semantic information about this parameter. With full schema coverage for the parameter, a 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 states the action ('Capture'), resource ('full DOM snapshot'), and scope ('including iframes and shadow roots'). It distinguishes from sibling wavexis_dom_query, which is a lightweight alternative. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. an alternative: 'Use wavexis_dom_query for lightweight element metadata instead of a full snapshot.' While it only mentions one alternative, it is highly relevant and helps the agent choose appropriately.

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