browser_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds key life-cycle information: each node carries a ref token, and refs are invalidated on navigation. This is important, non-obvious behavior beyond the bare 'return snapshot' statement. It does not mention output size or format, but the essentials for safe usage are covered.

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 sentences, both information-dense and front-loaded: the first states the core action, the second adds the ref workflow and invalidation caveat. No filler or redundancy exists.

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, no-output-schema tool, this description is nearly complete: it names the resource, explains ref tokens, and warns about invalidation across navigation. A minor gap is that it doesn't describe the snapshot's internal structure (e.g. tree with roles/text), which would help an agent parse the result, but the core calling convention is fully specified.

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 and schema coverage is trivially 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds value by explaining the ref token format, which is the output-side analog to parameters, but this is not required for parameter clarity.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('AI-oriented accessibility snapshot for the current page'), which clearly separates it from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_navigate. The distinction from the visual snapshot presumably offered by browser_screenshot is implicit but the resource is precisely named.

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?

Explains that refs are passed into browser_click/browser_type/etc., which tells an agent when to use this tool: to obtain element references for subsequent actions. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like browser_evaluate or browser_screenshot for inspecting the page, but the primary workflow is clear.

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