Save Screenshot

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

The tool has a destructiveHint: true annotation, so the bar for additional behavioral disclosure is lower. The description accurately describes a file-writing operation but adds no extra context such as potential overwriting of existing files, required permissions, or side effects beyond what the annotation already signals.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It succinctly conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary detail.

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?

This is a simple tool with a well-documented schema and clear annotations. The description is sufficient for the agent to understand the basic operation, though a note about overwriting behavior or file path handling would enhance completeness. Overall, it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 provides 100% coverage of both parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('save') and clearly identifies the resource ('screenshot of the mobile device') and the target ('to a file'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool mobile_take_screenshot, which likely captures a screenshot without saving to a file.

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 use when you need to persist a screenshot to a file, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like mobile_take_screenshot, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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