screen

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 mentions compression/diff for capture and bounding boxes for annotate, but does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or behavior like diff comparison (only in schema). It adds some context but insufficient for a tool with 12 parameters.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded. It is concise but perhaps overly terse given the tool's complexity. It could be slightly more structured without losing conciseness.

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 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, side effects, or usage context beyond the basic action descriptions. It relies heavily on the schema, which is insufficient for comprehensive understanding.

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 92%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline is 3, and no additional value from the description.

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 is for screen capture and annotation, and differentiates the two actions: 'capture' for screenshot with compression/diff, and 'annotate' for screenshot with element bounding boxes. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'app' or 'device'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to choose 'capture' over 'annotate' nor does it compare to sibling tools. The usage context is only implied by the action names.

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