studio_screenshot

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses high-DPI, PNG format, output directory, element-only vs full_page, and return of file path. It also gives a tip about clearing captions. However, does not mention potential failures or side effects.

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 with no fluff. The first sentence states the core action and specifics (2x, PNG, output directory). The second adds usage guidance and a tip. 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?

Given no output schema, description mentions returns file path. With 3 params all described in schema, the description adds practical advice (clear captions). Missing details like default capture area (viewport) but overall sufficient.

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 descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema, only clarifying that selector captures an element and full_page captures full scroll height. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states the tool takes a high-DPI screenshot, saves as PNG, and mentions two modes (element-only via selector or full_page). This distinguishes from sibling tools like studio_caption or studio_highlight, which serve different purposes.

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?

Description says the tool 'works any time during a session' and advises to clear captions/rings first unless desired. It provides context on when to use, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or compare to siblings.

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