screenshot_display

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool captures an image but doesn't mention whether this requires permissions, affects system performance, has rate limits, or what happens on failure. The description doesn't specify if the capture is instantaneous or has delays, or where the output is saved (only that 'output_path' is a parameter). This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool that interacts with system displays.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple capture tool and front-loads the core functionality. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, output format, and target.

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 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain parameter semantics, behavioral implications, or relationship to sibling tools. While concise, it lacks the contextual information needed for an agent to use this tool effectively, especially given the complexity of interacting with system displays.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'display_id' but doesn't explain what valid values are or how to obtain them. It doesn't mention 'output_path' at all, leaving this parameter completely unexplained. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond what the parameter names themselves imply.

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 action ('Capture') and the resource ('PNG/JPG of a display by display_id'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'screenshot_window', but the focus on 'display' rather than 'window' provides some implicit distinction. The description avoids tautology by specifying the output format and target.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'screenshot_window' or other recording tools. It mentions the 'display_id' parameter but doesn't explain how to obtain valid IDs (e.g., from 'list_displays') or when this tool is appropriate versus window-based capture. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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