screenshot_desktop

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that the output is a PNG screenshot for visual inspection. However, it does not disclose details like file path, memory impact, or whether the screenshot is saved locally or returned, which would enhance transparency.

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 sentence with no wasted words, efficiently conveying the tool's essential purpose and output format.

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 no-parameter tool with readOnlyHint, the description is nearly complete. It lacks details on where the screenshot is stored or how it is returned, but given the tool's simplicity and the expected output (PNG for inspection), it is adequate.

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 tool has no parameters, so per guidelines the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info since there are none, and the purpose is clear.

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 tool creates a desktop screenshot (PNG) for visual inspection of the current GUI state, using a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on different GUI interactions like clicking or listing windows.

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 for visual inspection of the GUI but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are given.

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