get_accessibility_snapshot

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses node structure, stable uids, parameter effects (capping nodes, filtering ignored nodes), and the compact tree goal. Lacks mention of performance impact or side effects, but overall informative.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose in first sentence, followed by a code example and bullet-pointed parameters. No redundant sentences, though the code example could be slightly more concise.

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?

Covers purpose, parameters, and return format via example. References sibling tool click_by_uid. Does not mention prerequisites like page load state, but given the tool's simplicity and presence of output schema, it is reasonably complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the tool description thoroughly explains both parameters: max_nodes caps the count to keep response small, interesting_only skips structural nodes without losing content. Adds rationale and behavioral nuance beyond default values.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Return' and resource 'accessibility tree' with the distinguishing feature 'stable uids'. The example format adds clarity and distinguishes it from siblings like get_interaction_tree.

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?

Mentions that uids can be passed to click_by_uid for deterministic interaction, providing a usage hint. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., get_interaction_tree, describe_uid) or state when not to use it.

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