screenshot_window

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool captures a window via partial title match, implying it's a read operation (screenshot) that likely doesn't modify the window. However, it doesn't disclose critical behaviors like what happens on match failures, whether it captures the entire window or just visible parts, permissions needed, or output format (e.g., image data). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential side effects.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('capture') and resource ('window'), followed by the key constraint ('by title (partial match)'). Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's complexity (involving window capture with partial matching), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., image format, error handling), behavioral nuances, or how it integrates with sibling tools like 'desktop_window_list'. For a tool that could fail or produce varied outputs, more context is needed.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'title' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reiterating 'partial match', but doesn't provide additional context like examples of partial matching, case sensitivity, or how to handle ambiguous titles. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('capture') and resource ('a specific window'), specifying it's for screenshots. It distinguishes from sibling 'screenshot_fullscreen' and 'screenshot_region' by focusing on windows, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'browser_screenshot' which might also capture browser windows. The purpose is specific but could be more precise about sibling differentiation.

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 like 'screenshot_fullscreen', 'screenshot_region', or 'browser_screenshot'. It mentions 'by title (partial match)' which hints at a usage condition, but doesn't explain when this is preferable or what happens if multiple windows match. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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