page_screenshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention file I/O consequences, format, or that 'fullPage' defaults to false. The description merely restates the action without revealing side effects or requirements.

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 with no wasted words. However, its brevity sacrifices completeness; a slightly expanded structure could improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It omits return value, prerequisites (e.g., page must be loaded), and how the file is saved. Sibling tools are not distinguished, leaving the agent without enough context for confident selection.

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 100%, with descriptions for all four parameters. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it does not clarify the usage of 'ref' or the absolute path requirement for 'filePath'.

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 core action ('Take a screenshot') and scope ('page or a specific element'). It is not a tautology and provides a specific verb-resource pairing. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like page_snapshot or page_pdf_save, which also capture page output.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as page_snapshot (for DOM snapshot) or page_pdf_save (for PDF output). No context about prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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