browser_get_accessibility_tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the action without explaining the nature of the snapshot (e.g., whether it includes hidden elements, whether it waits for the tree to be ready, potential side effects or failure modes).

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 one short sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no fluff. It is appropriately concise for a tool with no parameters.

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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential intent, but lacks details about the return format or behavioral characteristics. It is minimally adequate but leaves a gap for the agent to fully understand what a snapshot entails.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter information, but the baseline for 0 params is 4, and there is nothing more to explain.

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 states a specific action ('Get accessibility tree snapshot') with a clear resource (accessibility tree), which is a distinct browser inspection capability. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like browser_snapshot or browser_get_content, and the phrase 'Playwright MCP specific' adds little clarity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., browser_snapshot, browser_get_content). The description does not mention any exclusions or context for selecting this tool over others.

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