Capture a screenshot of the current page, returning the image file path and byte count for visual verification or record keeping.
浏览器截图——截取当前页面，返回图片路径与字节数。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | 截图文件名（可选） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return values but does not explicitly say whether it modifies page state or has side effects. Since it's a screenshot, it's implicitly non-destructive, but the description does not guarantee this.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and return information. There is no redundant or unnecessary text.
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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, it explains the return values (path and byte count). However, it does not specify image format, default file naming behavior, or where the path points to. These are minor gaps but acceptable 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 only parameter 'name' has a full description in the schema ('截图文件名（可选）'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 clearly states the verb 'capture' and the resource 'current page', and specifies the return (image path and byte count). It is distinct from the sibling playwright_navigate/click/assert tools, which perform different actions.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to navigate first) or exclusions (e.g., when to use playwright_assert instead). Usage is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.