match_aria_snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states it matches and returns a diff, but does not mention side effects, error behavior, or required permissions. The phrase 'a normal result' is vague.

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 sentence that packs the key elements (purpose, modes, result). It is concise without extraneous text, though a slightly more structured format could improve readability.

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 output schema exists, return values are sufficiently explained. However, with 5 parameters and a non-trivial matching behavior, the description lacks details on how mode affects matching and what constitutes pass/fail. Leaves gaps for an agent to infer.

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 60%. The tool description adds meaning for 'mode' (lists values) and 'expected' (aria snapshot), but 'size' and 'theme' are not elaborated. The description provides some context but does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states verb 'match', resource 'accessibility snapshot' against UI, and specifies the grammar format (Playwright `- role "name" [attr]`). Distinguishes itself from siblings like check_a11y and match_screenshot by focusing on ARIA snapshots.

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?

Mentions three modes (partial, strict, regex) and returns a pass/fail diff, but does not provide guidance on when to use each mode or compare to alternative tools. Lacks when-not-to-use scenarios.

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