annotate_screenshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It effectively communicates the capture behavior (toolbar hidden, drawings visible, optional crop) but does not describe the output format (e.g., image data or path) or any side effects, which are relevant for a tool without an output schema.

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 compact two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a clear optional modifier. Every clause serves a purpose, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior and the crop option. However, it does not clarify the interaction between markId and fullPage (e.g., precedence if both are provided) or what the screenshot output actually is, leaving minor gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds modest context for markId (its purpose for inspecting a squiggle) but adds nothing for fullPage beyond what the schema states. It does not need to compensate since the schema is complete.

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 + resource ('Screenshot the current page') and adds unique capabilities ('drawings visible but the toolbar hidden', 'crop tightly around that mark'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like annotate_list or annotate_resolve.

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 statement 'the fastest way to see what a squiggle actually meant' provides clear context for when to use the tool, and the markId parameter implies a use case. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or say 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.