ue_screenshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that the image is returned to the agent, saved to a specific path, and that default resolution is modest due to base64 overhead. Also explains the return_image parameter behavior.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose, rationale, location info, resolution guidance, and parameter descriptions. It is about 5 sentences plus the Args list, which is efficient and front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description covers the main return value: the image or path. It doesn't specify exact format (e.g., base64 in response), but the parameters cover the behavior. For a screenshot tool, this is reasonably complete.

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 0% (no description in schema), but the description's Args section explains each parameter: filename (optional, auto-generated with timestamp), width/height (resolution), and return_image (if false, only path). This adds essential meaning beyond schema types and defaults.

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 the tool captures the editor viewport and returns the image to the agent. It explains the importance ('Senza questo l'agente costruisce alla cieca') and distinguishes it as the only way to verify the scene visually. No sibling tool has the same purpose.

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 guidance on file location, resolution trade-offs (base64 overhead), and parameter usage ('Alzala quando serve leggere un dettaglio'). It does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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