safari_snapshot

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

While no annotations are provided, the description discloses key behaviors: returns accessibility tree, provides structured text (not an image), and implies it is a lightweight operation. It lacks explicit mention of being non-destructive but is clear enough for an agent.

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 extremely concise, front-loads the purpose, and every sentence provides essential information (workflow, comparisons, guidance). No wasted 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?

For a tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, usage context, and relationships with siblings comprehensively. The workflow and preference guidance make it complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 only parameter 'selector' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage) with 'CSS selector for subtree (default: full page)'. The description does not add extra semantic value beyond what is already in the schema.

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 clearly states it returns the accessibility tree with ref IDs for interactive elements, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (safari_screenshot, safari_read_page) by highlighting it is cheaper and provides structured text with interactive refs.

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?

Explicitly states it is the preferred method to see page state, provides a workflow (snapshot -> refs -> click), and gives clear guidance on when to use alternatives (safari_screenshot for visual layout only).

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