appium-screenshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Take a screenshot' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires specific device states, what happens if the device is locked, whether it saves files locally or returns data, or any error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks important operational context.

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 just 4 words that directly convey the core function. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the essential action and context in a single efficient statement.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (file path, binary data, success status), doesn't mention dependencies on Appium session state, and doesn't differentiate from similar screenshot tools in the sibling list. The minimal description leaves too many operational questions unanswered.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with the 'name' parameter clearly documented as 'Base name for the screenshot file'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but not enhanced parameter documentation.

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 'Take a screenshot using Appium' clearly states the action (take) and resource (screenshot) with the technology context (Appium). However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'take-screenshot' - the distinction between 'appium-screenshot' and 'take-screenshot' is unclear from this description alone.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'take-screenshot' or 'xcode_take_screenshot'. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparison with sibling tools that perform similar functions.

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