argus_watch_snapshot

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

Without any annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: does not navigate, uses Chrome remote debugging on port 9222, requires an open page, returns a structured response. It also explains that passing tabId switches focus. This is transparent and complete.

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 paragraph but front-loads the core action, then lists return fields, usage guidance, and prerequisites. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema, the description includes the return structure and key fields. It covers prerequisites (Chrome remote debugging, open page), optional parameters, and contrasts with full audit. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds value by explaining that url does not navigate and tabId is for switching tabs, including how to obtain tabId from argus_get_context. This contextual usage guidance goes beyond the schema.

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 purpose: 'Snapshots the currently open Chrome tab' and lists what it captures (console errors, network failures, etc.). It distinguishes itself from a full audit by saying 'without running a full audit', and references sibling tools like argus_get_context and list_pages for tab IDs.

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 during active development to inspect what is happening on the current page without running a full audit.' It also explains when to pass tabId and when not to. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternative tools (e.g., argus_audit) instead, which would make it a 5.

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