browser_snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that large-page responses can be truncated, that refs stay stable regardless of filters, and that visible elements remain numbered. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it does not describe output shape or explicitly state side-effect-free behavior.

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 four tight sentences, each earning its place. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage guidance, a caveat about large pages, and a clarification about ref stability. There is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 tool with three optional, well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: when to call it, how refs relate to click/fill, truncation risk, and mitigation strategies. It is not fully exhaustive about return shape, but it is complete enough for effective invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining how parameters are used together: narrowing with roles, paginating with offset/limit, and the stability of ref numbering under filtering. This elevates it above the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get visible interactive elements with ref IDs.' This clearly states what the tool does and is not a tautology. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as accessibility_snapshot or describe_page, so it falls short of a 5.

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 practical usage context: 'Always call after navigation' and 'Use refs with click/fill.' It also explains how to handle large pages by narrowing with roles or paginating with offset/limit. It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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