Snap Screenshots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that — free daily reset for anonymous callers versus the organisation's monthly allowance for authenticated callers — but says nothing about behaviour at exhaustion or whether the call itself is metered.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the outcome, with the two allowance variants packed into a single parallel clause. 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and a parameterless read tool needs little else. The description covers the one non-obvious aspect (which allowance is reported) and is complete for a definition of this complexity.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description's key/no-key explanation correctly clarifies that the result varies by ambient authentication state rather than by any argument.

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 states a concrete outcome — how many screenshots remain — for the resource 'quota', which is unambiguous next to the take_screenshot sibling that consumes it. The phrasing is informal (opening with 'How many...' rather than a verb like 'Returns'), so it is slightly less crisp than a 5.

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?

By explaining the key/no-key split, it implies which allowance applies in the caller's situation, which is mild routing guidance. However, it never says when to call this versus just attempting take_screenshot, nor that this should be checked before a batch of screenshots, leaving usage to inference.

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

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is lowered, and the description still adds real behavior: rendering happens in Chromium and very tall pages return a link rather than an inline image. That output-shape caveat is genuinely useful and not derivable from the annotations or schema.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core capability front-loaded and the fullPage caveat immediately after it. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With 9 parameters fully documented in the schema and an output schema present, the description does not need to enumerate parameters or return values. It covers the capability and the notable output caveat, though it stays silent on permissions, rate limits, and the public-URL-only constraint.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema for fullPage by explaining the downstream consequence ('very tall pages come back as a link instead of an inline image') rather than merely restating 'Capture the full scrollable page'.

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 names a specific verb ('Render') and resource ('a public web page in Chromium') and states the outcome ('return a screenshot'). An agent immediately knows this is a headless browser capture tool, and it is clearly distinct from the only sibling, get_quota.

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 one concrete usage rule ('Use fullPage for the whole scrollable page'), but there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. public URLs only is only implied by 'public web page'), and no exclusions. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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