browser_snapshot

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it captures an 'accessibility snapshot' and claims it is 'better than screenshot', but it does not disclose return value format or any potential side effects. With annotations covering the safety profile, a score of 3 reflects that the description adds only minimal behavioral context beyond the structured metadata.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the purpose and includes a comparative benefit. There is no redundant information or filler, and the structure is well-suited for quick reading by an AI agent.

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 tool has no output schema and only a minimal description. While the parameters are thoroughly documented in the schema and the read-only annotations are present, the description does not explain what the accessibility snapshot will contain or how the agent should interpret the response. This is a gap given the lack of an output schema, but the tool is relatively simple, so the description is minimally viable.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add any additional meaning to the parameters; the schema already explains boxes, depth, target, and filename. There is no extra context like parameter relationships or common usage patterns, so no credit beyond the baseline.

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 with a specific verb ('Capture') and resource ('accessibility snapshot of the current page'). It also explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool browser_take_screenshot by claiming it is 'better than screenshot', which helps the agent choose correctly between these two related 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 implies usage for capturing accessibility snapshots and suggests it is the preferred choice over screenshots for that purpose. It provides a clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention other alternative tools, such as browser_find or browser_evaluate, which might also serve similar inspection needs.

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