Dock snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: passwords and card numbers are redacted, the full return shape is enumerated, and diff mode reports added/changed/removed lines. No contradiction with annotations.

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 tightly packed sentences with no filler. The core purpose and ref-handle linkage come first, and the diff behavior is second — appropriately front-loaded for the common case.

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?

With no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description carries the return-value burden itself and does so: it names url, title, doc, rev and tree plus the diff variant. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description meaningfully enriches the `since` parameter by explaining the diff output it triggers (added / changed / removed lines) beyond the schema's 'diff only' note. The `filter` parameter is not mentioned in the description, capping this at 4.

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 specific verb and resource ('Read a tab') and names the output format ('compact accessibility outline', one line per element). It ties the [ref_N] handles to dock_act, making the purpose concrete, but it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings like dock_text or cdp_snapshot.

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?

Gives clear usage context: use it to obtain [ref_N] handles that feed dock_act, and pass since=<rev you hold> to get a diff instead of a full tree. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-tool statement (e.g., vs dock_text), so it falls short of a 5.

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