screenshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. 'Take a screenshot' implies a read operation that captures visual data, but it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it requires specific permissions, affects browser state, has rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the core action without any wasted text. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the tool's purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter roles, behavioral constraints, or return values, leaving gaps for a tool that likely interacts with browser state. More context is needed for effective use.

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%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'fullPage', 'path', or 'tabId' mean, their defaults, or how they affect the screenshot. With 3 undocumented parameters, the description fails to provide meaningful semantics beyond the basic action.

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 'Take a screenshot' clearly states the action (take) and resource (screenshot), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_page_content' or 'get_page_text' by specifying visual capture rather than text extraction. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all potential screenshot-related tools, keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open browser/tab), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_page_content' for non-visual data. Usage is implied by the action alone, with no contextual boundaries.

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