browser_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses important traits: password/hidden values are excluded, each read replaces all references, and pages are live rather than a frozen dataset. It does not mention permissions or error behavior, but the key side effects and freshness caveat are stated.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. Most sentences contribute meaningful operational details, though phrases like 'next_offset/next_text_offset' are slightly terse without parameter context.

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?

For a browser snapshot tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains pagination and reference replacement but does not describe return structure or the roles of several input parameters.

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%, so the description must compensate for six undocumented parameters. It only clarifies root_ref usage and pagination via next_offset/next_text_offset, leaving limit, text_limit, include_values, offset, and text_offset unexplained.

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 a specific action and resource: reading visible text and controls from the browser page, optionally scoped by root_ref. It distinguishes itself from general navigation tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like browser_find, browser_inspect_element, or browser_read_table.

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 explains pagination mechanics with next_offset/next_text_offset and scope_ref, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_find or browser_inspect_element. There are no exclusions or selection criteria provided.

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