accessibility_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool returns a compact snapshot rather than a raw tree, implying a read-only action. It does not explicitly confirm non-mutation or describe the snapshot format, but for a simple snapshot tool this is minimally adequate.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key operation and output qualifier come first. Every word 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential outcome and purpose. It is slightly thin on what 'compact view' means concretely and on whether it applies to the current page, but it is largely complete for this complexity.

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 has zero parameters and 100% description coverage, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and nothing in the description misleads about parameters.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get accessibility tree snapshot') and adds a distinctive qualifier ('compact view of page structure for LLM understanding'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling snapshot tools like browser_snapshot or wait_and_snapshot by naming the accessibility tree as the resource.

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 phrase 'compact view... for LLM understanding' implies this is for obtaining a lightweight, LLM-oriented structured snapshot rather than a full DOM/screenshot. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it.

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