screenshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'capture a screenshot' and does not mention whether this involves a headless browser, network requests, side effects, file placement, or any relevant constraints. This lack of transparency is a significant gap for a tool that likely interacts with external resources.

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 sentence of six words, immediately front-loaded with the action and target. There is zero waste, and the structure is perfectly concise for the minimal information it conveys.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has no annotations, an unexplained optional parameter, and a closely related sibling tool. The description does not address any of these contextual gaps, such as the role of 'timeout_profile', the relationship to 'browser_screenshot', or what the output contains. It is far too minimal for a tool with these complexities.

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%, and the description provides no explanation for the 'url', 'path', or 'timeout_profile' parameters. While 'url' and 'path' are somewhat self-evident from their names, 'timeout_profile' is obscure, and the description does not clarify the expected format or purpose of any parameter, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 states a clear verb ('Capture') and resource ('a screenshot of a webpage'), making the tool's basic function obvious. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the similarly named sibling 'browser_screenshot', which also captures screenshots, so it misses an opportunity to disambiguate.

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 'browser_screenshot' or 'save_pdf'. The description gives no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess.

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