snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the compact YAML output format, the ref-to-click mapping via session_click, and the behavior difference with and without a URL. It stops short of explicitly discussing the limit parameter or clarifying whether opening a URL mutates the current tab, but the core side-effect-relevant behavior is disclosed.

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 terse and information-dense, with a front-loaded definition followed by explicit WHEN/NOT WHEN labels. Every sentence adds distinct routing or behavioral value, with no filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not the description's job. The description covers what snapshot returns, how to use refs via session_click, when to use it, and which siblings to prefer instead. The only notable omission is the meaning of the limit parameter, which defaults to 30 but is not explained anywhere.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description directly explains the url parameter ('Без url — текущая вкладка сессии; с url — открыть и снять'). However, the limit parameter is never mentioned, leaving its effect on the returned tree to inference. Thus the description partially compensates for the schema but not completely.

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 defines snapshot as an interactive-element tree with refs (aria-like YAML, ~2-5KB) and immediately contrasts it with text and screenshot tools. This is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly differentiates it from siblings like session_text and screenshot.

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?

There is an explicit WHEN clause ('понять структуру страницы и получить ref для кликов') and an explicit NOT WHEN clause naming specific alternatives: session_text/fetch_page for text and screenshot(som=True) for visual. It also explains the URL-less vs URL behavior, leaving no ambiguity about when and how to use the tool.

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