camofox_snapshot

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses pagination behavior (truncation, hasMore, nextOffset) and optional screenshot, but does not discuss side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The disclosed traits are relevant but incomplete.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains pagination and optional screenshot. It is front-loaded and clear, though could be broken into structured bullet points.

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, so description should explain return format. It mentions response fields hasMore and nextOffset but does not describe the snapshot structure (e.g., content format, element refs). For an interactive tool, more detail on output would be helpful.

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 coverage is low (20%) and only offset has a description. The description clarifies includeScreenshot (boolean string) and offset (character offset), but does not explain tabId or userId beyond being required. It adds moderate value over 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 gets an accessibility snapshot of a tab with element refs for interaction, and distinguishes it from screenshot tools by mentioning optional screenshot and pagination. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other sibling tools like camofox_extract_structured_data.

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 implies usage for interacting with a page via element refs and mentions pagination for large pages, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives. The context is clear but no exclusions are given.

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