brand_extract_visual

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses use of headless Chrome, returns screenshot and computed styles, and explains merge parameter behavior (writes to .brand/). Could note if any side effects exist, but overall transparent for a read-only 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?

Five sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance and exclusions. No unnecessary words, every sentence earns its place.

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 output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (screenshot + computed styles). Could detail output format more, but overall sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds the 'merge' parameter behavior beyond schema, which is helpful. No further parameter nuance needed.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Screenshot a website and extract brand colors, fonts, and visual personality using headless Chrome.' It names the specific resource (website) and verb (extract), and distinguishes from sibling tools brand_extract_web and brand_extract_figma.

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?

Clearly states when to use: when brand_extract_web yields low quality (JS-rendered sites), when visual context needed, or when CSS parsing misses colors. Explicitly says 'NOT for Figma extraction' and mentions prerequisite (Chrome/Chromium installed).

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