browser_take_screenshot

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful limitation that the result is view-only and not actionable, but says nothing about what is actually produced (inline image vs. file written to disk) despite the filename parameter.

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, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the disambiguation note.

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 6-parameter capture tool with no output schema, the description plus annotations plus a fully documented schema cover most of what an agent needs. The only real gap is the return behavior (image content vs. saved file path), which matters given the filename parameter.

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 every parameter including the ref/element pairing rule and fullPage constraint is already documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail, 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 screenshot of the current page') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling browser_snapshot, which handles action-driving. An agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear negative constraint ('You can't perform actions based on the screenshot') and names the correct alternative (browser_snapshot). It lacks a positive statement of when a screenshot is the right choice (e.g., visual verification, capturing state for a human), so it stops just short of full when-to-use coverage.

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