snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it returns a 'filtered DOM listing' (indicating non-exhaustive output) and that node ids are used for later interaction. However, it doesn't disclose behavior like whether it scrolls, whether it captures only visible elements, potential performance cost on large pages, or whether it reflects the full DOM or just the current viewport.

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 concise sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states what's returned and the second gives actionable usage guidance. Highly efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 read-only introspection tool with one optional param and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It tells the agent what it gets and how to use the results. However, it doesn't clarify whether the 'filtered DOM listing' includes only clickable/interactable elements or also structured data about page state, and the absence of an output schema means the description could have explained the shape of the returned node ids more.

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% with only one optional param (tab_id) documented in the schema itself. The description adds the 'active tab' default behavior. With a single well-documented optional parameter and high schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate; the description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the verb (Return), the resource (active tab's url/title/DOM), and specific scope (interactable elements with node ids). It distinguishes itself from siblings like screenshot (visual) and list_tabs (tab listing) by focusing on DOM interactable elements. The reference to node_id and click tool also differentiates its purpose.

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 explicitly instructs using node_id with the click tool, providing clear downstream usage context. It implies snapshot is the precondition for interaction workflows. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name a specific alternative (like when to use eval_js instead), though the sibling context makes this fairly inferable.

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