page_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is read-only ('READ page content'), specifies output format (url, title, content, no HTML), and implies no interaction with elements. It could mention whether it waits for page load or handles dynamic content, but for a simple snapshot it is adequately 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?

The description is brief and front-loaded with the primary action and output. Every sentence adds value: it states the output, clarifies the no-HTML format, and differentiates from a sibling. No filler or redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description fully explains what is returned (url, title, content) and the nature of that content (visible text, no HTML). It also clarifies the use case and differentiation from a sibling, making it complete for an agent to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not mention session_id or page_id at all. While the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description fails to clarify their roles or any required format, leaving the agent to infer from names alone. This is a notable gap given the low coverage.

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 the verb 'extract' and the resource 'visible text content of a page', and explicitly lists what it returns (url, title, content). It also differentiates from page_a11y by contrasting text-only output with semantic element data, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('when you just need to READ page content') and when-not-to-use (for interactivity, use page_a11y instead). It names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it, leaving no ambiguity.

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