screenshot_fullscreen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details such as output format (e.g., image file, base64), permissions needed, side effects, or error conditions. For a capture tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying the capture scope, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter with full schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what is returned (e.g., image data, file path), potential errors, or system dependencies, leaving gaps for a tool that performs a system-level operation.

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 the schema already documents the 'display' parameter with its description. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the scope ('entire screen or a specific display'), which aligns with but doesn't enhance the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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?

The description clearly states the action ('capture') and target ('entire screen or a specific display'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'screenshot_region' and 'screenshot_window' by specifying full-screen capture, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives. The description avoids tautology by not just restating the tool name.

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 implies when to use this tool (for full-screen or display-specific capture) versus alternatives like 'screenshot_region' or 'screenshot_window', but it doesn't explicitly state when-not-to-use or name the alternatives. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection, leaving some interpretation to the agent.

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