events.snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It merely states that a snapshot is taken and mentions included floating nodes, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it blocks, any side effects, or return characteristics beyond the purpose itself.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The parenthetical clarification is compact and directly follows the main purpose statement.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is too thin to be complete. It names the tool's scope but omits usage guidance, behavioral traits, and any sense of what the snapshot returns or how it differs from alternatives.

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, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description cannot add parameter meaning beyond what the empty schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: '单次前台状态快照' (single foreground state snapshot). The parenthetical scope note '含游离窗口节点=toast/悬浮窗候选' clarifies the content included. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like ui.snapshot, events.capture, or ui2.state.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It only implies single-call usage through the word '单次', but does not say when to choose this over events.capture, ui.snapshot, or other state-observation tools.

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