browser_snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavioral traits, but it is extremely sparse. It does not describe what an accessibility snapshot contains, whether it is read-only, how results are returned, or any side effects. The claim 'better than screenshot' is subjective and vague, adding no concrete behavioral detail.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and includes a relevant comparison. This is appropriately concise for a simple read-only snapshot tool.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must provide enough context for an agent to understand the tool's overall behavior and return value. However, it only mentions the primary action and a screenshot comparison. It does not explain the shape of the snapshot, how filename or target affect behavior, or what output to expect, leaving significant 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, each with clear descriptions (e.g., boxes, depth, target, filename, sessionId). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter context, but the schema already documents what each parameter does, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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, with a specific verb ('Capture'), resource ('accessibility snapshot'), and scope ('current page'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling screenshot tool by claiming it is 'better than screenshot', which helps select it over that alternative.

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 phrase 'this is better than screenshot' provides some context for when to choose this tool over a screenshot, but it does not explain when to use it vs other DOM inspection tools like browser_find or browser_evaluate, nor does it mention any exclusions. It offers only a single implicit comparison, not comprehensive guidance.

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