capture_screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that capture is local via system Chrome, that redaction is applied before the shot is taken, and two concrete failure modes (unmatched selector, page changing mid-capture). It stops short of describing the return payload (image bytes, file path, or base64) and viewport defaults.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then redaction, then failure semantics. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition of schema or name.

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 annotations and no output schema, so the description is the only source of behavioral context; it covers failure modes and redaction ordering but omits what the tool returns and how results are delivered. For a 5-parameter tool with a nested object, that leaves a real 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?

Top-level schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it explains the redact concept (elements, text patterns, rectangles with black boxes), which maps onto selectors/patterns/rects. It says nothing about width, height, or fullPage, leaving those parameters to be inferred from names and constraints alone.

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 gives a specific verb (Capture), resource (a public web page), output format (PNG screenshot), and mechanism (locally via the system Chrome). There are no sibling tools to differentiate from, and an agent knows exactly what this tool produces.

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?

It explains how to use the redact parameter and states the conditions under which capture fails, which is useful operational guidance. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use framing or prerequisites (e.g. page must be publicly reachable), so usage is only implied.

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