capture_screenshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does mention the fixed output directory and that no path/name input is accepted, which adds transparency. However, it does not clarify side effects (e.g., file creation, potential overwrites) or performance implications, leaving gaps given the absence of annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the main action stated first. Every sentence earns its place: it covers functionality, output location, and a parameter hint. It is not overly verbose.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is quite complete: it explains the output path and parameter usage. The lack of details about return format or error handling is acceptable since no output schema exists, but the description adequately covers the essential usage aspects.

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 with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the 'wait_for_render' parameter's purpose in the context of chart changes, which goes beyond the schema's basic description. It also clarifies the region role implicitly through 'Capture region (default full)'.

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 clearly states what the tool does: 'Take a screenshot of the TradingView chart.' It also specifies the output behavior ('Saves to the fixed generated/screenshots/ directory... and returns the path') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing solely on screenshot capture, unlike health checks or state retrieval.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to capture a screenshot) and includes a specific usage hint for the 'wait_for_render' parameter ('use after symbol/timeframe/range changes'). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternative tools, but the sibling list makes the purpose distinct enough.

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