capture_live_site

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added behavioral fact is the headless-browser mechanism and the playwright dependency; it says nothing about timeouts, rate limits, or failure behavior on unreachable URLs.

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 action, zero filler. The dependency caveat is the only secondary detail and it is stated tersely.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not indicate what a successful capture returns (image bytes, file path, URL). For a network-facing capture tool that omission is a real gap, though annotations and the rich schema cover the input side adequately.

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 100%, so url, viewport and waitStrategy are fully documented in the schema, including enum meanings and defaults. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Take a fresh full-page screenshot of a live website URL') plus the mechanism ('headless browser'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like analyze_page_structure or record_site_motion, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the name and the verb. The one piece of guidance given ('Requires the optional playwright dependency') is a prerequisite rather than a when-to-use rule, and no alternative tool is mentioned for overlapping tasks like structure analysis.

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