live_screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose key behavioral traits: it saves a flattened/live snapshot and depends on the bridge plug-in. It does not discuss whether the original image is modified or whether an existing output file is overwritten, but 'snapshot' implies a non-destructive capture.

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 short and front-loaded with the action, and the bridge plug-in requirement is worth stating. The sentence about seeing current state and iterating is somewhat redundant with 'snapshot' and 'live,' but it adds useful intent context without bloating the description.

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?

The tool has three parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It gives a clear purpose and prerequisite but leaves max_edge and image_index undefined, and does not explain output_path semantics or file format. An agent could invoke it with defaults, but not understand the full behavior.

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%, yet the description does not explain any of the three parameters. Output_path is only implied by 'Save', while max_edge and image_index—especially which open image is captured—are not described at all, so the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 opening phrase 'Save a flattened snapshot of an image open in the running GIMP' names a specific verb, a concrete resource, and a key behavior (flattening). This clearly separates it from siblings like inspect_image and live_list_images, so an agent can distinguish the tool without opening the schema.

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 gives clear context: use it when you need to see the current state of a live document and iterate on it. It also states a prerequisite ('Requires the bridge plug-in'), but it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it.

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