capture_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 discloses the return value (a saved file path), but says nothing about side effects (writing a file to ./screenshots or outputPath), whether a browser session must already exist, navigation behavior, or failure/timeout handling — all of which matter for a 17-parameter capture tool.

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 front-loaded sentences with zero filler: the action first, the return value second. Nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

The description is terse but functional: the schema is fully self-documenting and the description fills the one gap structured fields can't (the return value, since there is no output schema). Since the purpose is narrow and the action is obvious, this level of detail is 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 description coverage is 100% and all 17 parameters (including defaults, enums, and interactions like quality being JPEG-only) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Capture a screenshot of a webpage or current page') and notes the return value (path to saved file). It does not differentiate itself from siblings like open_browser or list_screenshots, so an agent can't tell from the description alone when this is the right entry point.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The only contextual hint ('optional if page already loaded') lives in the url schema entry, not in the description, and it is not surfaced as guidance for choosing this tool over open_browser.

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