browser_snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, how 'refs' are defined, what the output format is, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely returns a complex structural tree.

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 with zero fluff. It is concise and efficient, though arguably too sparse to fully communicate the tool's value. Still, for brevity it earns a 4.

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?

For a tool that likely produces a complex accessibility tree with references, the description lacks essential context: what 'refs' mean, how the output is structured, any limitations, and when this tool is preferred over browser_a11y. Without an output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 provides a description for the single 'session' parameter (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema states. It does not explain how the session affects the resulting tree, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('accessibility tree with refs'), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'browser_a11y', which likely serves a similar accessibility-related function, so it does not reach a 5.

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 like browser_a11y or browser_read. It does not specify any conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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