Snapshot the page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the output is compact, text-only, and represents the accessibility tree with role/name pairs that directly feed into click/type targets. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying the output format and integration with other tools.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Read the page as an accessibility tree') and every phrase adds value—defining output, stating preference over screenshot, and noting compatibility with click/type. No unnecessary words.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description conveys the essential return type (accessibility tree text) and how it fits into the browser tool ecosystem. It doesn't mention the target parameter for subtree snapshots, but that is fully covered by the input schema, so overall completeness is good for an agent.

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 100%, so the schema already explains all parameters. The description adds minimal extra parameter meaning by linking role/name pairs to browser_click and browser_type targets, but it doesn't significantly expand beyond the schema.

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 the page as an accessibility tree with roles, accessible names, and structure. It distinguishes itself from browser_screenshot by being the primary text-only way to see a page, and the mention of role/name pairs for browser_click and browser_type adds specificity.

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?

Explicitly gives guidance to prefer this tool over browser_screenshot unless visual rendering is needed. It also explains that the output's role/name pairs are exactly what browser_click and browser_type take as targets, making the use case and alternatives clear.

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