Snapshot page

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it only reads visible text and interactive elements, refs are short-lived, and snapshots become stale after actions. This goes beyond a generic read description and informs the agent of the need for fresh snapshots, reducing misuse risk.

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 two sentences, tightly packed with essential information: what it reads, the ref behavior, and a usage directive. No filler or redundant statements, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, usage pattern, and a key caveat (fresh snapshot needed). It doesn't describe the exact return structure, but with no output schema, the description still gives enough context to use the tool correctly. Slight gaps remain about the nature of 'semantic interactive elements' and how refs are used in subsequent actions, but overall it is contextually adequate.

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 does not explain the parameters tabId and maxChars. The schema provides types and defaults, but the description adds no meaning about their purpose or usage. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it does not, leaving both parameters underspecified.

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 function: reading visible page text and semantic interactive elements. It distinguishes itself from siblings like browser_screenshot (visual capture) and browser_status (status check) by specifying exactly what content is retrieved and mentioning short-lived refs, which is a unique aspect of this tool.

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 explicit usage instructions: use a ref with browser_act and take a fresh snapshot after every action. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use this one, the guidance is clear about when to invoke it (after actions to get current state), which is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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