browser_snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It accurately describes the tool as a read-only snapshot (non-destructive) returning an ARIA tree. It does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., existing session) or error conditions, but covers the core behavioral trait of returning structural data for interaction.

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 sentences that front-load the primary purpose and immediately explain how the output is used. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately explains the return value and how to use it. It falls slightly short by not covering session_id behavior or potential errors, but overall provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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% (no parameter descriptions in schema), and the description does not mention the single optional parameter session_id, thus adding no meaning beyond the schema. The agent is left to infer its purpose from the parameter name alone, which is a significant gap.

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 captures an AI accessibility snapshot of the active page, returning an ARIA tree with ref markers. This distinctively differentiates it from sibling tools like browser_take_screenshot (visual) and browser_click (action), making its purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 indicates this is the primary way to 'see' the page for interaction, and that refs are used with browser_click/browser_type, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases where browser_take_screenshot or scrape_page might be preferred, lacking when-not guidance.

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