iyke_screenshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses the output (saved path, dimensions, byte count) and default path, but does not mention potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., window visibility), or error conditions. The behavior is adequately described for typical use but lacks depth.

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 exceptionally concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value: the first states the function and output, the second specifies the default path. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, capture options, return values, and default path. It is sufficient for correct invocation, though it could mention error handling or edge cases for 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?

With 67% schema coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining the two capture modes (window/pane) and linking them to parameters. It also mentions the return values, which are not in the schema, providing additional context beyond what the schema offers.

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 tool captures a PNG screenshot of either the full window or a specific pane, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like iyke_click or iyke_open, which serve different purposes, making the tool's function unmistakable.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but no alternative screenshot tool exists among siblings. The intended use case is implied by the description (capturing visual state), but no conditions or exclusions are stated.

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