screenshot

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered elsewhere. The description adds the useful behavior that a screenshot is captured and an image path is returned, but it does not say where the file is written, whether repeats overwrite the prior file, or what happens if the window is minimized or not found.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the mode options and return value. There is no filler and nothing is buried.

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 tool with six entirely undocumented parameters, no output schema, and a coordinate-based capture mode, the description leaves too much unspecified. An agent cannot tell what x/y/width/height mean, whether they are required for region mode, or how name affects the saved file, which risks malformed calls.

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% across six parameters, so the description is the only place semantics could come from. It explains the mode enum values and hints that name relates to the returned image path, but x, y, width, and height are left completely undefined — no coordinate origin, units, or requirement that they be paired with region mode.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("获取 MiniMax 窗口截图") and scopes it to the MiniMax window, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling action tools like minimax_click or minimax_find_text. It does not explicitly compare itself to the other window-related siblings (minimax_windows, minimax_activate), which keeps it below a 5.

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?

It states the two supported modes (screen and region), which implies when region mode is appropriate, but it never says when to prefer this tool over the other MiniMax capture/inspection siblings, nor what x/y/width/height must be supplied for region mode. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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