Page snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral fact that it captures an accessibility snapshot, which is consistent with the annotations. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, return format) are disclosed beyond what annotations provide.

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 short (one sentence) but omits essential information. It is concise at the expense of completeness, making it under-specified. Every sentence should earn its place, but this sentence does not provide enough value for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to use the parameters, or any behavioral details. The annotations are present but insufficient on their own.

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%, and the description provides zero information about the five parameters (_meta, boxes, depth, target, filename). The agent has no indication of what each parameter controls, making it impossible to use the tool correctly. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 uses a clear verb 'Capture' and specifies the resource as 'accessibility snapshot', distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'browser_take_screenshot' by claiming it's better. However, the term 'accessibility snapshot' is vague and not defined, leaving some ambiguity about what exactly is captured.

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 weakly implies usage via 'better than screenshot' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_evaluate or browser_console_messages. There is no mention of prerequisites, prohibitions, or specific scenarios.

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