rnw_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does state the return content ('element positions that can be used for clicking'), which is genuine behavioral value, but it omits the element-identifier format, whether the snapshot is stable/ref-based, and any side effects or auth context.

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?

Two tight sentences with no waste: the core action is front-loaded and the return-value note follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, this is a simple tool and the description covers both what it does and what it returns. The remaining gap is the format of the returned element identifiers, which matters for wiring into rnw_click.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to convey and the baseline is 4. The description does not confuse matters by describing nonexistent inputs.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('text snapshot of interactive elements on the page'), and 'text' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling rnw_screenshot. It is clear without being an explicit sibling differentiation, so a 4 fits.

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 line 'positions that can be used for clicking' implies this is a precursor to rnw_click, which is useful implied guidance. However, it never says when to choose this over rnw_screenshot or rnw_evaluate, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites.

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