browser_snapshot

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, non-destructive operation with open-world assumptions. The description adds value by specifying it captures an 'accessibility snapshot' (implying structured data like ARIA roles) rather than just a visual image, but doesn't detail output format, permissions, or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a comparative note. There is no wasted wording, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 has annotations covering safety and world assumptions, and a simple input schema with full coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain what the snapshot returns (e.g., structured data vs. file), leaving a gap in completeness for a tool that implies specialized output.

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 description coverage is 100% with one parameter 'filename' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as file format details or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 captures an accessibility snapshot of the current page, specifying the verb 'capture' and resource 'accessibility snapshot'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'browser_take_screenshot' by noting it's 'better than screenshot', though it doesn't fully explain how it differs beyond that comparison.

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 implies usage by comparing to 'browser_take_screenshot', suggesting this tool should be used when an accessibility snapshot is preferred over a regular screenshot. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or any prerequisites, leaving some context to inference.

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