browser_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention that output can be very large, that it returns a text/ref tree rather than an image, or that filename diverts output to disk. Not contradictory, just thin.

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 trailing comparison is informal and unsubstantiated, which keeps it from a 5, but nothing is bloated.

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 six-parameter, zero-required, read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description should explain what gets returned and the cost of full snapshots. The schema covers the scoping options, so the agent can call it, but the return-value shape is undocumented.

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 all six optional parameters (boxes, depth, around, target, section, filename) documented in detail, so the schema carries this dimension. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: "Capture accessibility snapshot of the current page." It also implicitly differentiates from browser_take_screenshot by claiming superiority, though it never names that sibling directly or says what an accessibility snapshot actually contains.

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?

"This is better than screenshot" is the only usage signal, and it's an unsupported preference rather than a condition. There is no guidance on when to prefer browser_take_screenshot, browser_evaluate, or the a11y audit sibling, nor on the depth/section/around workflow the schema itself suggests.

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