chrome_snapshot

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals useful output traits (agent-friendly observation, stable uids, page hints) and implies a read-only snapshot operation, but it does not explain side effects, target-tab resolution, default behavior, or failure modes. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences deliver purpose, output characteristics, and usage guidance with no filler. The key distinction about zooming is front-loaded and directly actionable. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is brief but provides a decent high-level framing. The rich per-parameter schema descriptions compensate for many details, but the description does not cover default snapshot behavior, tab-selection strategy, or how this tool relates to nearby Chrome inspection siblings. It is minimally adequate with clear gaps.

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 high at 91%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explicitly grouping mode/query/nearUid as a zoom mechanism rather than a full-page dump. This gives the agent a useful semantic hint for parameter selection beyond what each schema field already states.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Inspect a page in the existing Chrome profile.' It also clarifies what the tool returns—stable uids, visible actions, form fields, and page hints—which gives the agent a concrete idea of the tool's output. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings like chrome_inspect or chrome_find, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives clear context: this tool inspects pages in an existing Chrome profile, and instructs to use mode/query/nearUid to zoom rather than dumping the full page. It provides actionable within-tool guidance but does not name alternative tools or state when to prefer one over another, so it lacks explicit sibling selection guidance.

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