browser_snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool returns an accessibility tree, omitting any side effects, permissions required, or error behavior. For a read-only snapshot, such omissions are acceptable but still minimal.

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 three sentences long, with the first sentence clearly stating the action. It is concise and to the point, with no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns. It could mention that it operates on the current page, but that is implied. Overall, it covers the essentials.

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 no parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). Per the rubric, 0 parameters gives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information because there are none, but it explains the output, which is sufficient.

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 captures an accessibility snapshot of the current page. It distinguishes itself from screenshots by noting it is better for understanding page structure, and it specifies the return value as an accessibility tree. This makes its purpose unambiguous among sibling tools.

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 some guidance by contrasting with screenshots, but it does not give explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions. It lacks mention of alternatives or context for when the accessibility tree is preferable over other page inspection tools like browser_evaluate or browser_network_requests.

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