screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It conveys that the capture reflects the current screen state, but says nothing about what is returned (inline image vs. file path), behavior on a non-running or nonexistent VM, or whether the operation has any side effects. For a tool that produces an artifact, the return form is a notable omission.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing behavioral detail captured under other dimensions.

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 a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain at minimum what the agent receives back (image content, path, URL) and any prerequisites such as the VM being active. Neither is covered, leaving an agent unable to predict the result of calling it.

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 single parameter vm_name is undocumented in the schema. The description only says the VM is 'specified', adding no detail on expected identifier format, naming conventions, or whether the VM must be running. It does not 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: capture the current screen of the specified lume VM as a screenshot. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling input tools (click, type_text, key_press), which the description implicitly separates itself from by describing observation rather than interaction.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool: no mention of checking VM state before/after actions, no timing or frequency constraints, and no exclusions. The intended usage is only weakly inferable from the 'current screen' phrasing.

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