capture_screen

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Capture the desktop or a specific window to a PNG file' but does not reveal that it writes a file (a side effect), how the selector behaves when omitted, whether it blocks, or any permission requirements. This is insufficient for a tool that performs a write operation.

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 zero fluff. It states the action, scope, and output directly. While it is terse, the conciseness is appropriate given the tool's apparent simplicity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the effect of omitting parameters, the return value (or lack thereof), file overwrite behavior, or any error conditions. An agent would have to guess about the required output path and selector semantics.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. The phrase 'the desktop or a specific window' hints that the 'selector' parameter is used to pick a window, but it does not explain how 'handle' or 'titleIncludes' work, nor does it mention 'outputPath' or its default. The description adds only vague conceptual meaning, not operational detail.

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 action ('Capture') and the resource ('the desktop or a specific window') with an explicit output type ('to a PNG file'). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like list_windows, focus_window, and input tools.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to choose this over list_windows or get_foreground_window, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description is purely declarative.

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