raxol_screenshot

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 adds useful detail about the output format (plain text, no ANSI codes) and implies a read-only screenshot operation, but it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects or what happens if the session is invalid.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a key output detail. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return format. It could mention error behavior or session prerequisites, but overall it is sufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id', with a clear description ('Session identifier'). The tool description adds no additional parameter detail beyond naming the session, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Captures a text screenshot') and the resource ('a running headless Raxol session'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like raxol_stop or raxol_send_key by focusing on capturing screen content.

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 context of use is clear: it applies to a running headless session and returns plain text. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, falling short of full usage guidance.

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