safari_accessibility_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only 'Get' operation and indicates what data is returned, but it does not mention side effects, limitations, or the structure of the returned tree. This is adequate for a read operation but not deeply transparent.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the operation and resource, and the second adds a meaningful use case. It does not repeat schema information or waste words.

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?

The description plus fully-covered schema provides enough to invoke the tool: parameters are documented, and the description lists the key output categories even without an output schema. Minor gaps remain around tree structure and alternative tool selection, but they are not blocking for a simple read operation.

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. The description adds no extra meaning about `receipt`, `maxDepth`, or `selector` beyond what the schema already provides; it only clarifies the overall purpose of the returned data.

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 ('Get') with a precise resource—the accessibility tree—and lists its key contents (roles, ARIA labels, focusable elements, form states). It is clearly distinct in meaning from siblings like safari_snapshot, though it does not explicitly name an alternative to differentiate itself.

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?

'Essential for a11y auditing' provides a clear use context, and the content list implies when an agent would want this tool (checking roles, focus, and form states). It does not explicitly name alternatives or specify when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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