browser_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent with the description's 'Capture accessibility snapshot' (a read operation). The description does not contradict annotations and adds a small behavioral note that it is 'better than screenshot' (implying richer content than a visual). However, it does not disclose details like output format, performance implications, or the fact that it captures the whole page. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds limited extra behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and the key advantage over a screenshot. There is no redundant or fluff content, and the essential information is front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description is relatively minimal. It does not explain the structure of the returned accessibility snapshot or when to use it in a workflow. However, the parameter schemas are thorough, and the annotations cover safety. Given the tool's simplicity, it is adequate but lacks detail about the output format and usage scenarios, leaving room for improvement.

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 100%, so all four parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics. As a result, the baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles parameter understanding entirely.

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 states a specific verb ('Capture') and resource ('accessibility snapshot of the current page'), and adds a comparative hint ('better than screenshot') that distinguishes it from the sibling browser_take_screenshot. It does not explicitly differentiate from other siblings but is clear and specific enough to convey its core function.

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 phrase 'this is better than screenshot' implicitly suggests using it when an accessibility snapshot is preferred over a visual screenshot. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or which alternative to choose otherwise. There are many sibling tools, but no reference to them, so usage context is only partially addressed.

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