get_screen_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'retrieve' without clarifying safety (e.g., read-only nature) or potential side effects. The return format is ambiguous ('base64 screenshot image download URL' could be interpreted multiple ways), and there is no mention of permissions, failures, or URL longevity.

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, focused sentence with no redundant information. It clearly communicates the tool's core purpose without verbosity.

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 lack of an output schema, the description does mention the return type (a URL), which is useful. However, it does not address error cases, prerequisites (such as the screen being generated), or the exact nature of the URL (e.g., whether it expires or contains base64 data). For a simple getter, this is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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%, with both parameters described generically as 'The ID of the screen' and 'The ID of the project.' The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, such as the relationship between screenId and projectId or how to obtain these IDs. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters.

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's function: 'Retrieve the base64 screenshot image download URL for a generated screen.' The verb 'retrieve' is specific, and the resource is well-defined as a screenshot image URL. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_screen_code, which retrieves code instead of an image.

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 phrase 'for a generated screen' implies the tool is used after a screen has been generated, but no explicit guidance is given regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_screen_code or generate_screen. There are no exclusion statements or references to sibling tools.

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