snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior fully. It mentions reliability but does not describe side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or how parameters affect output. The phrase 'stable refs' is a hint but lacks detail.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core value proposition without extra words. It earns its place, though a slightly more structured breakdown could improve clarity.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, pagination, or how parameters like 'max' and 'interactiveOnly' control the output, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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?

Only one of three parameters (tabId) has a schema description, and the tool description does not explain 'max' or 'interactiveOnly'. The mention of 'ref' does not directly map to any parameter, leaving their purpose unclear.

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 identifies 'Accessibility snapshot' and mentions 'interactive elements with stable refs', which clearly differentiates from sibling tools like 'screenshot' or 'get_html'. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve' to state the action directly.

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 use when stable refs are needed compared to CSS selectors, but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are given. Sibling tools exist for other DOM access methods, but no guidance is provided on choosing between them.

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