okta-browser-snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the snapshot is sanitized, omitting sensitive data. However, it does not mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, or whether the page is refreshed. Overall, good transparency for a read-only tool.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and then lists specifics. Every word adds value, with no wasted verbiage.

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 no output schema, the description explains what the snapshot contains (title, headings, text, controls) but does not specify the format (e.g., structured text, HTML). It adequately covers the return content for a snapshot tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain them. The schema coverage is 100%, and the baseline for no parameters is 4. The description adds no param info, but that is acceptable.

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 tool reads a sanitized snapshot of the authenticated Okta page, listing what is included (title, headings, visible text, controls) and excluded (input values, cookies, tokens, arbitrary JS). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'okta-browser-read' by emphasizing sanitization.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not compare this tool to alternatives like 'okta-browser-read' or 'okta-browser-harvest-tokens', leaving the agent to infer its purpose without context.

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