bulk_screenshot_actors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explains the composition (screenshot_actor -> focus_actor + get_viewport_screenshot) and describes the delay_ms behavior (sleeps between actors). It misses potential side effects like viewport changes, but the given details are adequate for understanding the tool's behavior.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides context and comparison. It is well-structured and efficient.

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 no output schema, the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., file paths or success status). While it describes the process, the lack of output information leaves the agent uncertain about the result. This is a moderate gap.

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%, but the description adds significant value: for 'names', it adds a 50-entry cap and comparison to bulk_focus_actors; for 'delay_ms', it specifies default, max, and the behavioral note about sleeping between actors (not after last). This exceeds what the schema provides.

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 frames and screenshots each actor in a sequence, explicitly distinguishing it from the sibling bulk_focus_actors by noting it always captures a PNG. It also explains the composition of screenshot_actor, providing a precise purpose.

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 usage for thumbnail pipelines needing deterministic centered shots. It compares to bulk_focus_actors, offering some guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives beyond the sibling comparison.

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