linkedin_browser_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It conveys the fallback role and the returned content (actionable references), and implies a read operation, but omits whether login/session is required, any rate limits, and side-effect profile. Adequate context, but incomplete for an annotation-free tool.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads what the output is, the second routes usage. No filler or redundancy, though the structure is minimal rather than notably well-organized.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns; it does so at a high level (links, buttons, fields with references). It leaves the undocumented textLimit parameter and any session prerequisites unaddressed, so an agent still has gaps before invoking it confidently.

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?

The description never mentions either parameter. With only 50% schema coverage, textLimit is undocumented in both the schema and the description, and scopeSelector's purpose is left entirely to the schema. The prose adds no semantic value for the parameters.

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?

States a specific action and output: a snapshot of the current page containing links, buttons and fields with references to click or fill. This clearly differentiates it from the visual linkedin_browser_screenshot and the higher-level action tools. It stops short of naming an explicit sibling, but the resource and return content are unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly positions itself as 'la salida de emergencia' (the fallback) when a high-level tool fails to find something, giving a clear when-to-use condition. It does not state an explicit when-not or name the specific high-level alternatives it complements, so it falls short of a 5.

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