browser_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the snapshot is 'flat' and includes tag, role, text, and ref, which is helpful. However, it does not mention potential side effects, timing, or whether the snapshot represents the full page or a viewport, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 concise sentences: the first states the resource and content, the second gives a direct usage instruction. Every word adds value, with no redundant filler.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides all essential context: what is returned, the fields included, and how to use the result. It is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 has zero parameters, so per the baseline rule, a score of 4 is appropriate. There is no parameter information to add beyond the empty schema, and the description does not need to compensate.

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 returns a flat accessibility/DOM snapshot with specific fields (tag, role, text, ref), and ties it to element targeting. It explicitly mentions using the returned ref with browser_click, distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser_get_text.

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 gives clear usage context: use it for element targeting and pass the returned ref to browser_click. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for a zero-parameter tool.

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