browser_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 of transparency. It states that the tool returns element refs like 'e0, e1', which is helpful. However, it does not disclose any side effects (e.g., whether it modifies page state), performance implications, or prerequisites (e.g., must have a loaded page). The behavior is minimally described.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that front-load the core purpose and immediately specify the return format. Every word is necessary and no space is wasted.

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 that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a clear purpose and return value. It is reasonably complete for a simple read tool. However, it could mention that the snapshot reflects the current accessibility tree, or that element refs are only valid until the page changes, which would improve completeness. Still, it covers the essential information.

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, and the input schema coverage is 100% (since there are no properties). According to guidelines, this gives a baseline of 3 even without parameter info in the description. The description does not add any parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the lack of parameters.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get accessibility snapshot of the current page.' This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like browser_screenshot (visual) and browser_click (interaction). The additional note about returning element refs clarifies the output.

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 implies that the tool is used to obtain element references for subsequent interactions, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this should be called before browser_click or browser_type, nor does it describe situations where the snapshot should be avoided. The context is implied but not articulated.

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