extract_accessibility_tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: the output shape (AOM) and a rough cost profile (~95% token reduction vs. full DOM). It does not clarify that it is a non-mutating read, what happens on large or empty pages, or how output is bounded, so meaningful gaps remain.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: the verb and resource come first, the output format and the token-cost benefit follow. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema.

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 simple read-only extraction tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it returns and why it is cheap. However, it omits whether the result reflects the currently navigated page/state and how output scales, which an agent selecting it would want to know.

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?

There is only one optional parameter and the schema documents it at 100% coverage, including its default, so the description need not repeat it. It adds no extra meaning about session_id semantics beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation at full coverage.

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?

A specific verb ('Extract') plus a specific resource ('interactive elements... as an Accessibility Object Model'), and the parenthetical enumeration (buttons, links, inputs) pins down what 'interactive' means. It distinguishes itself from extract_clean_text by focusing on interactive elements rather than text, though it never names that sibling.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it needs a compact map of clickable/fillable elements rather than page text. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over extract_clean_text or get_page_status, and no prerequisites (e.g. that a page must be loaded) are given.

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