Get accessibility snapshot

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description discloses many behaviors: rejection of oversized DOM, cursor expiration and staleness, password redaction, partial content as aria-yaml-fragment, and separate short-lived element refs. These add rich context not present in annotations and align with them.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the purpose first, then constraints and parameter-specific behaviors. Each sentence contributes unique information, though it is longer than necessary and could be more succinct while preserving 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 complexity and richness of the schema (13 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers many operational aspects: cursor semantics, truncation, redaction, and ref limitations. However, it still does not fully explain all parameter interactions or the exact output format, leaving some gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter explanations. It mentions interactiveOnly, maxChildren, nextCursor, and refs, but omits many parameters like maxDepth, maxBytes, maxChars, includeBoundingBoxes, and scope details. The vague statement 'Semantic scope, depth, boxes...' does not suffice for a 13-parameter tool.

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 inspects a bounded accessibility-oriented snapshot of one explicitly addressed page, with options for scoping via a locator and iframe chain. It uses specific verbs and resources ('inspect', 'accessibility-oriented snapshot') and distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_observe by emphasizing accessibility and boundedness.

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 that this is for accessibility-oriented inspection, and mentions parameter usage like interactiveOnly and maxChildren. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., browser_observe) or list exclusion criteria — only implicit contextual guidance.

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