statistica_screenshot

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden; it usefully discloses that content is prepared while hidden and the window is only shown at capture time. However, it omits side-effect details such as whether a new STATISTICA process is launched and left open by default (only the attach parameter hints at this).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and workflow, no filler. Efficient, though the second sentence slightly restates the hidden/shown sequencing already implied.

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 an 11-parameter tool with 91% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the overall operation. Minor gaps remain around process lifecycle and what the returned image reference is, but the schema covers the call surface well.

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 91%, so the schema already documents nearly all parameters (mode enum, waitMs default, attach semantics). The description adds only the high-level build-then-capture framing and no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb (capture) and resource (STATISTICA main window to PNG/JPG), plus the preparation step. It is distinguishable from siblings like statistica_graph or run_analysis, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling it should be preferred over.

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?

Implies usage via 'for a report' and describes the build-then-capture flow, giving an agent a sense of when it fits. But it never states when to prefer this over statistica_graph/statistica_dialog or notes prerequisites for the run/module path.

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