screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses that workspace capture switches the view there and back (a side effect on agent state), that hidden workspaces have no pixels until shown, and that returned click coordinates are always full-scale regardless of scale. Missing only the return payload shape and any latency/rate considerations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and region semantics before the token-saving tip and the workspace caveat. Nothing is redundant or padding.

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?

For an 8-parameter, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description covers the behavioral quirks well but leaves the format and cursor parameters plus the return value entirely unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would hit on first use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it defines the x/y/width/height tuple, explains `scale` semantics and its interaction with click coordinates, and explains `workspace`. But `format` (png/jpeg) and `show_cursor` (default false) are never mentioned, leaving 2 of 8 parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 the agent desktop, or a region of it', with the region parameterized. An agent can distinguish it from mouse/click/window tools, though the boundary with the sibling `view_workspace` is not explicitly addressed even though `workspace` capture here overlaps conceptually.

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?

Gives actionable guidance on two conditions: use scale < 1 to save tokens, and use `workspace` to capture another workspace. However it never states when to prefer this over siblings like `view_workspace`, `zoom`, or `desktop_info`, nor any exclusion cases, so usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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