cloak_screenshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It mentions the return value and that anti-detection parameters are similar to cloak_get_text, but does not disclose any side effects, whether it is read-only, or behavior on error. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 very concise: three sentences clearly front-loading the main purpose and then providing key usage tips. No wasted words.

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 tool has 14 parameters but only 2 are required. Description covers the main behavior, return value, and the most critical parameters. However, many parameters (wait, timeout, humanize, etc.) rely on cross-reference to sibling tool. Given the output schema exists, completeness is good but not exhaustive.

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 description coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains 'full_page' and 'selector' fully, and states path must be absolute. Other parameters are grouped under 'anti-detection parameters same as cloak_get_text', which is helpful but not detailed. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the cross-reference.

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 verb (open URL, screenshot, save as PNG) and the resource (URL, path), and specifies the return value (actual file path). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like cloak_get_html and cloak_get_text which retrieve content rather than screenshots.

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 explains when to use full_page vs selector, and requires absolute paths for the path parameter. It also references cloak_get_text for anti-detection parameters, providing context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or alternatives.

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