browser_snapshot_full

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the qualifier 'without summarization', which hints at the output being full and potentially large, but it does not elaborate on behavioral traits such as response size, performance implications, or when full snapshots are necessary. With annotations providing the safety context, this is an appropriate baseline.

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, front-loaded sentence that captures the core operation without unnecessary words. It is efficient and earns its place, though it could benefit from additional routing context without becoming bloated.

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 description is brief and lacks critical context for an agent to choose this over the sibling 'browser_snapshot' or to understand the trade-offs of using a full, unsummarized snapshot. While annotations cover safety and the schema covers parameters, there is no output schema and the description does not explain return format or size implications, leaving a gap for a tool that likely produces large outputs.

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%, meaning all four parameters are fully documented in the schema with clear descriptions (e.g., bounding box format, depth limit, target reference, filename for markdown output). The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is correct.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Capture full accessibility snapshot without summarization.' This is clear about what it does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'browser_snapshot', which is likely a similar snapshot tool that may summarize or limit output. Without naming the sibling or stating the difference, sibling differentiation is missing.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the closely named 'browser_snapshot' sibling. An agent cannot tell from this description whether this is the default snapshot tool or a heavy alternative to be used sparingly. There are no explicit when/when-not conditions or alternatives mentioned.

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