PrusaMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the tool captures screenshots even from background windows, returns an image, and automatically deletes temporary files after reading. This covers the core operational behavior well, though it doesn't mention potential limitations like window detection failures or file format specifics.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core functionality and unique capability, the second explains the file handling behavior. There's zero wasted language, and the information is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides complete enough context for an agent to understand when and how to use it. It explains what the tool does, its special capability (background capture), and file handling behavior. The only minor gap is not specifying the return format beyond 'image' (e.g., PNG, JPEG).

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 has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline would be 4 even with no parameter information in the description. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and behavior.

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 ('prend un screenshot') and target resource ('de la fenêtre PrusaSlicer'), distinguishing it from all sibling tools which focus on analysis, configuration, or processing rather than screen capture. It precisely communicates what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 about when to use this tool ('même en arrière-plan' indicates it works even when PrusaSlicer is in the background), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives. It implies this is for capturing the PrusaSlicer window specifically, but doesn't contrast with potential sibling tools for other capture scenarios.

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