interceptor_browser_snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the output format but does not mention any side effects, permissions required, rate limits, or potential destructiveness. The description implies a read-only operation but lacks explicit statements.

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 that conveys the core purpose and value proposition without any fluff. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the key action and output format.

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 the low complexity (3 simple parameters, no nested objects, no output schema) and full parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is fairly complete for the tool's purpose. However, it lacks behavioral transparency and usage guidelines, leaving some gaps for an agent to fully understand context.

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 input schema already documents all parameters (target_id, selector, mode). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions the output format. Hence baseline score of 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 tool takes an 'ARIA accessibility snapshot' and outputs a 'YAML-formatted role tree'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like interceptor_browser_screenshot (visual) and interceptor_browser_evaluate (JS execution) by specifying the accessibility focus and format.

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 usage context ('Great for LLM-driven page understanding without parsing HTML') but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use this tool compared to alternatives. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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