raw_screenshot

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It explicitly warns that the action 'May open a dialog or change project state,' which is valuable context beyond the tool name. It does not detail what the dialog or state change is, but the warning is honest and useful.

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 two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the caveat placed after. Every sentence earns its place, though 'inspect the command name first' is somewhat cryptic.

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 no-argument tool, the description covers purpose, argument count, and side-effect warnings. However, with no output schema, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., an image, a path, or a status), and the meaning of 'short format' is left unexplained.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents the call surface. The description adds nothing about parameters, but none need explanation; the baseline of 4 applies.

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 verb and resource: 'Capture a screenshot of Audacity.' The '(short format)' qualifier and the generic static-action framing add some ambiguity, but an agent can still determine that this tool is for taking a screenshot without opening the schema.

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 usage: it is a static no-argument Audacity action, so call it when a screenshot capture is needed without arguments. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or exclusions, and 'inspect the command name first' is vague guidance rather than a concrete selection rule.

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