playwright_screenshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific page states, what format the screenshot returns (image data, file path), if there are size/quality settings, or any error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core functionality.

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 2 parameters (one undocumented), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the 'name' parameter does, what the tool returns, or important behavioral constraints. The minimal description leaves too many gaps for effective tool use.

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 50% (only 'selector' has a description). The description mentions 'current page or a specific element' which aligns with the selector parameter's documented behavior, but doesn't explain the 'name' parameter at all. It adds minimal value beyond what's already in the schema description for selector.

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 action ('Take a screenshot') and target ('current page or a specific element'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like playwright_get_html_content or playwright_get_text_content, which also capture page content in different formats.

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. It doesn't mention when screenshotting is preferable to getting HTML/text content from sibling tools, nor does it discuss prerequisites like needing a page to be loaded first.

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