browser_inspect_screenshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format (Base64-encoded PNG with data URI) and the full_page parameter's effect, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error conditions. It adequately describes core behavior but misses advanced operational context.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns) and uses minimal sentences. Every part adds value, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' labels are slightly redundant given the schema, but they enhance readability.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return values, and the output schema handles return details, so no major gaps exist for basic usage.

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. It explains both parameters: 'session' as the browser session name and 'full_page' controlling scrollable capture. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail session format or full_page implications beyond the boolean.

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 specific action ('Take a screenshot') and resource ('current page'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser_inspect_dom or browser_inspect_text. It precisely identifies the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's implied for capturing visual page states, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an active session) or comparisons to other inspection tools like browser_inspect_network or browser_inspect_events.

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