cloak_snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the output type (text-based snapshot of accessibility tree) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, side-effect-free, or any limitations (e.g., performance, size constraints).

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, concise sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal. It omits details like the format of the output, how interactive elements are identified, and when to prefer this over sibling tools like cloak_get_content or cloak_screenshot.

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% with one optional boolean parameter 'full' described as 'If true, return complete page content.' The description adds the context of 'accessibility tree with ref IDs' but does not elaborate on what 'complete page content' means relative to the default snapshot. Baseline 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 tool retrieves a text-based snapshot of the accessibility tree with ref IDs for interactive elements. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like cloak_get_content or cloak_info, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate them.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cloak_get_content, cloak_screenshot). It does not mention prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this is preferred.

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