get_screenshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: it specifies the return format ('Returns the image as base64'), a system requirement ('Requires ffmpeg to be installed'), and the action's purpose. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return format, requirement, and usage context in three concise sentences. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and easy to parse.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it explains what the tool does, its output, and a key requirement. However, it could improve by mentioning potential errors or limitations, such as video availability or timestamp validity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples for timestamp beyond the schema's description, but does not compensate unnecessarily, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 specific action ('Capture a screenshot'), resource ('from a YouTube video'), and scope ('at a specific timestamp'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_audio or get_video by focusing on visual capture rather than audio extraction or metadata retrieval.

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 implies usage context ('Useful for getting visual context from specific moments in a video'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_video for general video info or get_audio for audio extraction. No exclusions or prerequisites beyond ffmpeg are mentioned.

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