Inspect Accessibility

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that acknowledgeRawCapture must be true and results may contain sensitive content. No contradiction.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, preconditions+next steps, sensitivity. Efficient but first sentence uses jargon ('full-profile diagnosis') which may be unclear. No wasteful content.

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 many sibling tools and output schema exists, description provides good overall context. But fails to explain all parameters (0% schema coverage), so agent may miss how to filter or limit results.

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 has 0% coverage; description only mentions acknowledgeRawCapture, and incorrectly as required. No explanation for limit, selector, or textContains. Agent cannot infer their purpose from description.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves DOM-derived accessibility info (roles, names, states, summaries). Differentiates from siblings like browser_get_dom and browser_get_elements by specifying accessibility focus.

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?

Provides use condition ('when full-profile diagnosis needs accessibility') and preconditions (active page, acknowledgeRawCapture). But incorrectly states acknowledgeRawCapture as required (schema says optional), misleading the agent. Lacks when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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