Screenshot Path

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 core action but omits critical details such as where the PNG is saved (local vs. device), whether it overwrites existing files, permission requirements, or behavior on failure. The device parameter is not mentioned, so its effect on the screenshot is unknown. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the primary action and output. However, it is concise to the point of omitting important details (parameter semantics, side effects), so it is not fully optimal. It earns a 4 for structure but loses a point for under-specification that could be addressed without verbosity.

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 that the tool has one optional parameter (device) and many closely related sibling tools, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the device parameter, differentiate from siblings, or provide usage context. While an output schema exists (so return format is covered), the tool's overall behavior and applicability are left underspecified.

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 input schema has one parameter 'device' with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention it at all. Since the description fails to explain the purpose or effect of the parameter, the agent has no semantic context for it. The description adds zero value beyond the raw schema, and with no schema descriptions, the parameter is effectively undocumented.

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 a specific action (take a screenshot), the output format (PNG file), and the return value (path). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'screenshot' (which may not save to a file) or 'get_screenshot' (which might retrieve an existing one). The verb+resource+output structure is explicit and unambiguous.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'screenshot', 'get_screenshot', or 'perceive_screen'. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to other tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context on its own.

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