ui_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does disclose real traits: each call produces a fresh snapshot, indices are stable in document order, a snapshot_id is returned, and compact mode omits the full element array. It says nothing about whether the snapshot is side-effect free, what happens when max_elements truncates the tree, or how the keyword filter affects results, which leaves meaningful behavioral gaps for a 6-parameter 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 dense sentences with no filler, and the core capability is front-loaded before the parameter behavior. The second sentence packs two unrelated modes into one clause, which slightly hurts scannability but wastes no words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the tool exposes six parameters at 0% schema coverage with no annotations and several siblings competing for the same job. The description covers two parameters and no selection criteria, which is not enough for an agent to invoke this correctly on the first attempt.

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 0%, so the description must explain all six parameters and explains only two: since_snapshot_id and compact. keyword, include_xml, max_elements, and only_interactive are entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent to guess at filtering and truncation semantics.

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 concrete resource (a fresh semantic UI snapshot) plus two defining properties: document-order indices that are stable, and a snapshot_id. That is far more specific than a name restatement. It never distinguishes itself from near-siblings such as get_ui_tree, inspect_view_hierarchy, or ui_describe, so an agent has no explicit basis for choosing among the snapshot-family 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?

The clause 'Supply since_snapshot_id for added/removed/changed nodes' is parameter guidance, not tool-selection guidance. There is no statement of when to call ui_snapshot versus ui_query, find_elements, or get_ui_tree, and no preconditions or exclusions are given.

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