browser_snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by saying 'snapshot' and 'current page', but it does not explicitly state side-effect safety, what happens if the page is not fully loaded, or the exact nature of the returned references. This leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise sentences. The first states the core action, the second explains the use case. There is no extraneous information, 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?

Given the tool's simplicity—no parameters and no output schema—the description is largely adequate. It covers what the tool does and when to use it. However, it lacks detail on the exact format or structure of the snapshot (e.g., whether it returns the full accessibility tree or just element references), which would improve completeness.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage. According to the rubric, the baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools. The description adds context about the return value ('references to elements') which is helpful for understanding what the snapshot provides, but there are no parameter semantics to clarify.

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 accessibility snapshot of the current page, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like browser_screenshot by emphasizing use for 'getting references to elements to interact with', which is a unique purpose among the listed browser automation tools.

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 explicitly says 'Use this for getting references to elements to interact with', providing clear guidance on when to employ this tool. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling list makes the differentiation apparent.

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