browser_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by mentioning the accessibility tree is capped, includes console and page errors, and explicitly excludes screenshots. This improves the agent's understanding of scope and output limitations.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, specifics follow, and the alternative is clearly noted. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the output schema and annotations, the description sufficiently covers purpose, scope, and constraints. It mentions the lease requirement and the no-screenshot boundary. It could be more complete by mentioning when to use it in a workflow, but that is not necessary for this simple tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only restates that lease_id is required without explaining its purpose, format, or relationship to workspace acquisition. This provides minimal value beyond the schema's required field list.

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 identifies the tool as producing a structured page summary with specific contents (DOM highlights, accessibility tree, errors). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling visual_capture by noting 'No screenshots (use visual_capture)', which removes ambiguity.

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 provides a clear alternative for screenshots and states a prerequisite (requires lease_id), which implies when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly describe when not to use it or compare it with other browser-related tools like browser_action or visual_get.

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