screenshot_window

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool captures an image but doesn't mention file system effects (e.g., that 'output_path' saves a file), permissions needed, potential side effects, or error conditions. For a tool that writes files, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core functionality. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a tool that performs file system writes, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or output details. For a tool with two parameters and significant implications (saving files), this is inadequate.

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. It mentions 'window_id' but doesn't explain its format or how to obtain it. It doesn't mention 'output_path' at all, leaving a required parameter undocumented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's parameter names.

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 resource ('a PNG/JPG of a window'), specifying the required parameter ('by window_id'). It distinguishes from 'screenshot_display' by focusing on windows rather than displays. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from other window-related tools like 'record_window_duration' beyond the capture action.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage when needing a screenshot of a specific window, but doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing 'list_windows' first to get window_id) or when to choose 'screenshot_display' instead. This leaves the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

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