browser_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (labelled refs) and the downstream consumer (browser_click), but says nothing about pagination behavior, snapshot size limits, or what happens on elements without refs.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the practical filtering tip. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, output shape, and the key tuning knob. Minor gaps remain around pagination (limit/offset interplay) and behavior on very large pages.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a use-case hint for query ('large lists, e.g. iCloud contacts'), but adds nothing about limit or offset semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Accessibility / clickable-element snapshot of the current tab') and clarifies what the output is (refs e1, e2, …). The 'accessibility / clickable-element' framing implicitly separates it from browser_screenshot and browser_find, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

It gives usage context for the query parameter ('for large lists (e.g. iCloud contacts)') and tells the agent refs are consumed by browser_click, but never states when to prefer this over browser_screenshot, browser_find, or browser_evaluate. Usage is implied rather than contrasted with alternatives.

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