Snapshot page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape (tree with refs) and the frame-scoping trait ('Refs belong to a frame'), which is genuinely useful behavior. However, it never states that the operation is non-mutating, how it behaves on timeout, or what happens when maxDepth/maxNodes truncate the tree — meaningful gaps for a 10-parameter tool.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. The core capability comes first, the workflow cue second, and the frame caveat last — a well-ordered, appropriately sized description.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description rightly sketches the return value (accessibility tree with refs), which helps. But with 10 optional parameters, no annotations, and 40% schema coverage, the agent is left guessing about mode, depth/node limits, and hidden-element handling — a notable shortfall for a tool this configurable.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It explains allFrames and hints at frameId via the ref/frame relationship, but says nothing about mode ('interactive' vs 'full'), timeout, maxDepth, maxNodes, includeHidden, or tabId — six parameters with no documentation anywhere.

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 and resource ('Return a compact accessibility-style tree') plus its distinguishing feature: stable refs like f0_e12 for interactive elements. An agent can immediately separate this from siblings like dom, screenshot, or evaluate, which return different representations of the page.

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 prescribes the workflow: 'Do this before clicking or typing.' That is a clear when-to-use cue. It also gives a conditional for iframe coverage (allFrames=true). It stops short of naming an alternative tool (e.g. dom) or a when-not-to-use case, so it isn't a full 5.

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