scout_snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly discloses the diff behavior, stable refs, cheapness, and the 'since the last action' scope. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or discuss failure modes, but 'capture' implies non-mutation and the disclosed traits cover the most important behaviors.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the primary purpose stated in the first sentence and useful behavioral details following. Each sentence adds distinct value—purpose, diff behavior, and cost/alternative—with no filler.

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?

The description covers what the snapshot contains, the diff behavior, the temporal scope ('since the last action'), and the important recommendation against screenshots. No output schema is present, so the listed content items serve as a sufficient description of what the agent will receive.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters in detail, including the full-diff toggle and session targeting semantics. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the schema's thoroughness; baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a strong verb and resource: 'Capture the current page state' and lists concrete outputs (URL, state fingerprint, interactable elements, refs, geometry issues, coverage, oracle violations). It also distinguishes itself from the screenshot sibling by stating it is cheaper and preferred, making the tool's identity clear.

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 explicitly tells the agent to prefer this over screenshots and explains that re-snapshotting the same route returns a diff, which guides when to call it again. It does not enumerate exclusions relative to other scout_* siblings, but the guidance it gives is actionable and sufficient for the main decision.

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