Page Snapshot

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false) already establish the safety profile. The description adds valuable context by highlighting the 'bounded' nature (controlled by max_elements and max_text_chars) and enumerating the output components, going beyond the bare annotations without contradiction.

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 directly states the tool's purpose and output scope without any filler. Every word adds meaning.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool, the presence of a rich output schema, and complete annotations, the description fully covers the necessary context. It communicates the key output categories and bounded nature, making it self-sufficient for agent invocation.

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% for all three parameters, so the schema already fully documents them. The description adds no additional parameter-specific detail; it focuses on the output rather than parameter behavior, which is acceptable but does not exceed the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('bounded page outline'), enumerating distinct content types (text excerpt, headings, links, buttons, inputs, forms, recommended selectors). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like page_accessibility_snapshot or page_observe.

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 implies usage for obtaining a summarized page overview but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or preconditions. It lacks the explicit alternative guidance seen in the calibration example.

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