plasticity_screenshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description usefully adds that the file is written new and never overwritten, plus that hidden windows are rejected to avoid stale frames. That is real behavioral context beyond the annotations, though auth/permission needs and the return value go unmentioned.

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 tight sentences, both of which earn their place: the first gives the action and its non-overwrite guarantee, the second gives the refusal condition. No filler and the core action is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description should ideally indicate what comes back (saved file path, or an error on hidden windows). It covers the write semantics and the refusal case, which is adequate for a one-parameter tool, but leaves the return contract unstated.

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 coverage is 0% for the single 'path' parameter, so the description carries the burden. It says the target is a 'new file' and will not be overwritten, implying a destination path, but it never states whether the path is absolute or relative or whether the .png extension must be included.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: saving a PNG screenshot of the visible Plasticity renderer viewport. That is far more precise than a sibling like plasticity_capture_snapshot, but the description never contrasts itself with that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus plasticity_capture_snapshot or plasticity_list_windows. The only condition mentioned ('refuses hidden windows') is a failure mode rather than usage guidance, leaving the agent to guess when this is the right capture tool.

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