perch_shot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short. It does not disclose that the tool writes a file to disk (only the `path` param hints at it), what happens when `path` is omitted, whether the editor must be running, or any permission/side-effect profile.

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?

Extremely tight, front-loaded with the tool's action and then the parameter meaning in one clause. Nothing is padded, though the telegraphic fragment style borders on under-specification rather than true 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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain the return artifact (file path, image bytes, or inline result) and the default capture destination. It omits all of this, leaving the agent unsure what calling the tool actually produces.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning: the schema only says `what` defaults to "editor", whereas the description explains that 'editor' captures the whole editor page and 'preview' captures the running generator iframe. It adds nothing for `path`, however.

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 names the resource (a screenshot) and, via the `what` values, the two capture targets (whole editor page vs running generator iframe). It is a fragment rather than a verb+object sentence, and it does not differentiate from the sibling `perch_snapshot`, which an agent could easily confuse with a screenshot.

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 two `what` values are explained, which implies the capture-scope choice, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives like `perch_snapshot` or `perch_console` for visual inspection.

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