websex_browser_screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits beyond the structured fields: the capture is persisted as an artifact in the engagement, and the return value is a relative artifact path. It omits side-effect details such as overwrite behavior, whether 'path' controls output location, and whether the capture acts on the current page state.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and the return value come first. It is efficiently sized, though the brevity is partly why coverage gaps remain.

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 values need not be re-explained, but with 4 undocumented parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, the definition leaves an agent guessing about required inputs and capture behavior. It is under-specified for a tool that persists artifacts.

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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It only vaguely alludes to the engagement context (engagement_id) and says nothing about session_id, path, or the full_page default of true.

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 specific verb and resource ('Capture a browser screenshot') plus the destination scope ('into the selected engagement'), which is enough to identify the operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the close sibling websex_browser_snapshot, leaving the screenshot-vs-snapshot distinction to inference.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives are named. The presence of websex_browser_snapshot in the sibling list makes the absence of any routing guidance a real gap, since an agent cannot tell which of the two to pick.

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