Download images to a folder

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by defining the overwrite contract (existing files never replaced unless overwrite is true), the non-deletion of files this run lacks, the folder-boundary guarantee, the no-symlink rule, and the zero-credit cost. These clarify the real scope of the destructiveHint, which annotations alone leave ambiguous.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then usage, then behavioral caveats, then cost — a sensible order with no filler. The density is high and the layout sentences are packed, but every clause carries operational information.

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 write tool with an output schema already present, the definition supplies everything an agent needs: when to call it, how paths are formed per layout, what it will and will not overwrite, and that it costs no credits.

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 60%, and the description compensates by giving concrete path layouts for both 'store' and 'fastlane' values and by instructing that the project root be passed as folder for the fastlane layout. The 'kind' distinction (set vs. single generation) is also implied, though 'id' and 'overwrite' semantics beyond the default go largely to 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Saves the finished images of a screenshot set (or of one generation)') plus the return value (absolute file paths), and names the two supported targets, so it is distinguishable from siblings like generate_screenshot or create_screenshot_set.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' clause ties invocation to get_job_status reporting 'final', and offers the alternative mode of saving partial results. The prerequisite tool is named directly, leaving nothing to inference.

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