Capture Parallels VM screenshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat that. It does add value by explaining the behavior when output_path is omitted (saved to default artifact directory), which is not captured in annotations or schema. However, it does not describe what the tool returns or any side effects beyond file saving, so a moderate score is appropriate.

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 extremely concise, with only two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then explain the optional parameter. Every word earns its place, and it is well-structured for quick scanning by an agent.

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?

For a simple capture tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (capture and save) and the only optional parameter's handling. It does not explain the return value, but the presence of an output schema relieves that burden. The tool is straightforward, and nothing critical appears missing.

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 the description must compensate. It clearly defines 'vm' as the VM name or UUID, and 'output_path' as an optional host path with a default behavior. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare property names, though it could be slightly more detailed (e.g., acceptable file extensions or path constraints). Overall, it sufficiently explains the parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Capture') and a clear resource ('screenshot of the VM's current screen buffer'). It unambiguously differentiates from sibling VM management tools by focusing on image capture, so an agent can immediately identify its purpose without confusion.

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 when to use it (when a screenshot is needed) and is distinct from all sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'use this instead of X' scenarios, though the purpose is so clear that no further guidance is necessary. It also provides a practical detail about the output_path default, which informs usage.

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