get_page_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what side effects it might have, how the snapshot is returned, or what 'interactive' means. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the basic purpose.

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, which is concise. However, it is so sparse that it borders on under-specification. The phrase 'ARIA-ish' is unclear and does not add meaningful value. It is not overly verbose, but lacks necessary details.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description. Given its likely use in a QA/testing context (sibling tools include test flows and captures), the description fails to explain how the snapshot fits into the workflow, what the output format is, or how parameters affect results. The description is incomplete for a tool with zero additional documentation.

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 schema has 2 optional parameters (filename and selector), but the description does not mention them. With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameters, but it does not. The parameter names give some hint (e.g., selector targets an element), but their effect on the snapshot is 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 'Compact interactive DOM snapshot (ARIA-ish) for the current page' clearly indicates the tool retrieves a DOM snapshot of the current page. It specifies the resource (current page) and the output type (DOM snapshot), distinguishing it from sibling tools like evaluate_web_task or perform_step. However, terms like 'interactive' and 'ARIA-ish' are vague and not fully explained.

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 versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The description is a bare definition without any usage context, leaving the agent to infer when to invoke it.

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