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 returns 'element refs you can use with click, type, and other tools,' which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on potential side effects (e.g., if it modifies the page), performance implications, or error handling, leaving gaps for a mutation-sensitive operation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does, how to use the output, and a key parameter behavior. However, it could benefit from mentioning return format details or error cases, slightly reducing completeness.

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 the schema fully documents both parameters (selector and compact). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'compact mode (default) for smaller output - only interactive elements,' which slightly elaborates on the compact parameter's effect. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the specific action ('Get an accessibility tree snapshot of the page') and resource ('page'), distinguishing it from siblings like browser_screenshot (visual) or browser_text (text extraction). It explicitly mentions the output format ('element refs') and their purpose ('use with click, type, and other tools'), making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('to get an accessibility tree snapshot') and mentions 'compact mode (default) for smaller output - only interactive elements,' which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., browser_screenshot for visual snapshots), keeping it from a perfect score.

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