get_screenshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key trait that the result is a real PNG image attachment rather than a URL or metadata, plus the exportable-node requirement. It says nothing about failure modes, selection fallback behavior, or how the 800/1600px caps interact with the output.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the return format stated first and the constraint second. Every clause earns its place.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential contract (returns a PNG attachment, needs an exportable node). It leaves unaddressed what happens with no nodeId when the editor has no selection, and gives no sense of the output's dimensions given the quality/scale controls.

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 67% – nodeId and quality are documented in-schema, including the overview/detail presets and explicit-scale override. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own and leaves `scale` (0.01–4) with only type bounds, so it neither compensates for the gap nor detracts.

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?

"Return an actual PNG screenshot" names a specific verb and output format, and "as a DSH image attachment" clarifies the delivery mechanism. It does not distinguish this from adjacent tools like download_assets or get_figjam, so an agent must infer the routing itself.

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?

"Requires an exportable node" is a real precondition, which is more than most tools offer. But there is no statement of when to prefer this over download_assets/get_figjam, and no mention of what to do when the node is not exportable.

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