Get Accessibility Tree

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it returns a hierarchical tree structure, mentions performance implications ('slower but more accurate' for useFullTree), and describes the effect of parameters on output. It doesn't cover error conditions or permissions, but provides substantial operational context.

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 efficiently structured with three focused sentences: first states the core purpose, second describes the return format, and third provides parameter usage tips. Every sentence adds value with zero waste, and it's front-loaded with the main action.

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 3 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides good context about what the tool returns and how parameters affect behavior. It could be more complete by mentioning typical use cases or limitations, but covers the essential operational aspects adequately for this complexity level.

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 schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal value by restating parameter purposes in a more conversational tone (e.g., 'Use interestingOnly=false for the complete raw tree'), but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('Capture a snapshot') and resource ('current page's accessibility tree'), and distinguishes it from sibling 'query_accessibility_tree' by focusing on snapshot capture rather than querying. It explicitly mentions the hierarchical structure and key attributes returned.

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 provides clear context on when to use specific parameter settings (e.g., 'use interestingOnly=false for the complete raw tree'), but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'query_accessibility_tree' or other sibling tools. It offers practical guidance without naming exclusions.

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