browser_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'Capture accessibility snapshot' which is consistent with a read-only operation, and 'better than screenshot' is a comparative statement, not a behavioral detail. It does not describe what the snapshot contains, return format, or side effects, so it adds minimal value beyond the annotations.

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 a single sentence with zero filler. The primary action and the key comparison are front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a tool with a clear purpose.

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?

There is no output schema and the description does not explain what the snapshot looks like or how to interpret it. An agent is left guessing about the return format (e.g., text of the accessibility tree) and whether it includes selectors or references. While the parameters are documented, the tool's output and typical use cases are under-specified, making it incomplete for a tool that returns a snapshot.

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 100%; each of the four parameters (boxes, depth, target, filename) is fully described in the schema. The description adds no parameter information, but since the schema covers everything, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Capture') and resource ('accessibility snapshot of the current page'), and explicitly contrasts it with a sibling ('better than screenshot'), distinguishing it from browser_take_screenshot without needing to inspect the schema. The title 'Page snapshot' reinforces the intent. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 only usage hint is 'better than screenshot', which implies it is preferred over screenshots for capturing page state, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus others (e.g., browser_evaluate, browser_console_messages). It lacks explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The hint is clear but underdeveloped.

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