astrax_capturar_pantalla

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it discloses the key traits: output is PNG, it returns a path, and it does not open/display the result. Remaining gaps (save location, overwrite behavior) are minor for a simple screenshot tool, but no annotation coverage means it could say slightly more.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary action, with a tight parenthetical that handles the sibling disambiguation. No wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists so return-value detail is redundant, and the description still notes the path return. The critical sibling routing is covered; only the parameter semantics and save-location details are thin.

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% for the single nombre_archivo parameter. The description implies a file is written as PNG but never explains the filename argument or its default. It adds marginal meaning but does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (guarda la pantalla como PNG) plus the return value (devuelve su ruta). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling astrax_ver_pantalla, so the agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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 parenthetical names the alternative and the exact condition that selects it: 'para VER usa astrax_ver_pantalla'. This is an explicit when-to-use-this-vs-that instruction, not an inference.

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