snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Return a flat snapshot' implies a read-only operation and no side effects, but it does not explicitly state that it does not modify the page or disclose any performance or pagination considerations. While the behavior is largely inferable from the name and description, the lack of explicit confirmation about non-modification is a gap.

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 sentences with zero fluff. It front-loads the output structure and then provides actionable usage in the same breath. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It specifies the exact fields of the snapshot and how to consume them, which is all an agent needs to call and use the tool correctly. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit field enumeration.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds value beyond the empty schema by explaining what the snapshot contains (tag, role, text, ref) and how the ref should be used, which is helpful for agents even though there is nothing to parameterize.

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 clearly states a specific verb (return), resource (flat accessibility/DOM snapshot), and the distinguishing content (tag, role, text, ref). It also ties the output to a concrete use case (element targeting) and names the sibling tool 'click' for downstream usage, making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use a returned `ref` with `click`.' This provides a clear next step and implies the tool is for obtaining targeting references. However, it does not mention when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., get_text or screenshot) or any exclusions, leaving some inference for the agent.

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