page_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It explains the three actions but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., restore will navigate the page, possibly losing current state) or error conditions (e.g., what happens if the snapshot name doesn't exist). The description is moderately transparent but leaves gaps.

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, front-loading the concept ('Named page-state checkpoints') and then detailing the actions and use case. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 absence of an output schema and the presence of enums, the description adequately explains the tool's functionality. However, it could be more complete by mentioning error handling (e.g., missing snapshot) or the format of diff output. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.

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 input schema covers all three parameters with 100% coverage, including enum descriptions. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by elaborating what each action does in detail (e.g., 'snapshot saves URL + cookies + storage + DOM signature'). This extra info justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 that the tool manages named page-state checkpoints with three distinct actions (snapshot, restore, diff). It specifies exactly what each action does (saves URL/cookies/storage/DOM signature, navigates back, compares DOM), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform individual operations like get_cookies or get_page_elements.

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 a use case: 'Enables testing multiple paths from the same starting point.' However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., using separate tools for cookies, storage, and DOM), and does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites.

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