browser_snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool captures a snapshot and lists bound tabs, implying it is a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state safety characteristics or potential side effects. It provides useful behavioral context (e.g., using tabId on subsequent calls) but lacks explicit non-destructive statements or permission requirements.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the tool's core purpose. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without fluff or repetition of schema 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema) and the absence of annotations, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (element references and tab list) and how it fits into the broader workflow. It doesn't enumerate return format details, but the purpose and key behaviors are covered. Minor gap: it doesn't explicitly state that the snapshot reflects the current page state, but that is implied.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'tabId' parameter, including its optionality and how to see available IDs. The description adds a small contextual clue about using tabId on subsequent calls, but this does not significantly go beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('capture') and resource ('accessibility snapshot of the current page'), clearly stating what the tool does. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by highlighting its dual purpose: providing element references for interaction and listing all bound tabs.

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 clear context on when to use the tool ('getting references to elements to interact with') and explains how the tab listing helps with tab selection. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, such as browser_list_tabs for tabs or browser_extract_text for text extraction, which would strengthen the guidance.

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