browser_screenshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It accurately describes the capture action and the trade-off between jpeg and png formats, but it does not mention the return format (e.g., base64) or any potential side effects or limitations. It does not contradict any annotations.

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 consists of two sentences that efficiently cover the purpose, options, and format guidance without any redundant phrases. The core action is front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly.

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?

The description covers the main features but leaves some gaps: it does not explicitly state whether fullPage and selector are mutually exclusive, nor does it describe what the tool returns (which is important given the absence of an output schema). For a tool with four optional parameters, this ambiguity reduces completeness.

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 low (only quality is described), but the tool description compensates by explaining the meaning of key parameters: 'optionally full page or a single element' clarifies the roles of fullPage and selector, and the format discussion explains the format parameter. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare parameter names.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Capture a screenshot of the current page', clearly stating the tool's primary function. It also mentions optional full-page or single-element capture, which distinguishes it from sibling browser tools that do not offer screenshot capabilities.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool compared to alternatives like browser_snapshot or other sibling tools. The only usage advice concerns format selection (jpeg vs png), which is parameter-level advice, not tool-selection guidance. Thus, the description lacks clear context for choosing this tool over others.

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