Accessibility Snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'bounded' and the scoping options, but it does not disclose output shape, ignored-node behavior, or the include_values secret-leak protection that appears only in the schema.

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 with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core action and target scope without redundancy.

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 input schema, output schema, and annotations cover a lot of the operational detail, and the description conveys the key abstraction and boundedness. However, it lacks contextual usage guidance and leaves important behavioral details like node limits and value-inclusion defaults to the schema.

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 alludes to scoped selector/frame/shadow targets but does not explain max_nodes, include_values, or include_ignored. With only 50% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate for parameter meanings left 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 the tool returns 'a bounded Chromium accessibility tree' and names the scope variants (page, selector, frame, shadow). This directly distinguishes it from sibling page_snapshot and frame_snapshot tools.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of alternatives like page_snapshot or frame_snapshot, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description implies its use case only through the resource name.

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