Read the accessibility tree of a page

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

It provides significant behavioral transparency by specifying the technical path to the accessibility front, which is not covered by annotations. It also explicitly defines the output as a 'bounded outline,' managing expectations about the return value.

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 well-structured and concise, front-loading the core functional description. It uses technical detail where necessary but remains highly focused on the tool's unique capabilities.

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 that the tool interacts with a complex, internal DevTools accessibility front, the description is extremely complete by including the exact chain of commands required to access the required data.

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 schema coverage is 100% for both `maxDepth` and `maxNodes`, meaning the schema provides all necessary semantic information. The description does not add additional semantic value beyond clarifying that these parameters manage the bounds of the accessibility walk.

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?

While the description is clear, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like `browser_dom_tree` to help the agent decide when *not* to use this specific accessibility walker. The usage guidance is implied rather than prescriptive.

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 provides highly valuable context for correct usage by detailing the required implementation path: `target.getFront("accessibility") then getWalker()`. This technical guidance is crucial for the agent's success in the execution environment.

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