a11y_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description takes the full burden. It clearly communicates what the tool does and even discloses an operational prerequisite: 'Requiere Playwright instalado localmente.' It lacks details about where the snapshot is stored or whether the operation is idempotent, but it is candid about core behavior.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the snapshot content, the intended deployment workflow with a11y_diff, and the Playwright requirement. No filler or repetition.

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 a single required parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the exact data captured and the companion tool for comparison. It could more clearly state the return format or persistence behavior, but the remaining gap is minor.

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?

Input schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the URL parameter. It only says 'de una URL,' which adds almost nothing beyond the schema property name 'url'. It does not mention accepted URL formats, whether HTTPS is required, or any page-load expectations.

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 'Captura un snapshot de accesibilidad de una URL' and enumerates the captured content: interactive elements (tag, role, accessible name, href) and real tab order. This specific language differentiates it from sibling tools like a11y_audit_url and a11y_diff.

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 an explicit workflow: save this snapshot before a deploy, then compare later with a11y_diff. This immediately tells an agent when to choose this tool versus an audit or a comparison tool.

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