screenshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states the action and target but does not reveal the output format, whether the operation is read-only, resolution behavior, or any side effects. The term 'screenshot' weakly implies an image result, but that is not enough detail for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying what the tool does and what it operates on.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no nested objects, the description plus schema is sufficient to invoke it correctly. It does not describe the return value or output format, and there is no output schema, but the noun 'screenshot' makes an image result the natural expectation, so this is a minor gap rather than a serious one.

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 the schema already documents scale and nodeId. The description adds a small amount of context by distinguishing viewport capture from node capture, but it does not meaningfully extend the parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Take') and names a clear resource ('current canvas view or a specific node'), so an agent can understand the tool's core function. It falls short of a 5 because it does not distinguish this from similar capture/export siblings like export_as_png or export_as_svg.

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 when to use the tool: when a visual capture of the current view or a particular node is needed. However, it offers no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or references to alternative tools, which is a gap given the large set of export and capture siblings.

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