imgui_screenshot_annotated

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the tool adds widget ID overlays, which is the key behavioral trait differentiating it from a plain screenshot. However, it doesn't disclose details like whether this is a read-only operation, what impact overlays have on the saved image, or any side effects. For a screenshot capture tool, the risk profile is modest, so a 3 is fair — it conveys the core behavior but omits some nuances.

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 a single, efficient sentence that conveys the action and its distinguishing overlay feature. No wasted words or filler. It's appropriately concise for a simple tool with one optional parameter. Could arguably be slightly more informative for the usage dimension, but as written it's tight and front-loaded with the core action.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool — one optional parameter, no output schema, no nested objects. Given the schema fully covers the parameter and there's no output schema to document, the main missing context is usage differentiation from sibling screenshot tools. With 60+ sibling tools in the family, explicitly naming which alternative to use when would make this more complete, but for its simplicity the description is adequate.

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 100%, so the single `path` parameter is already fully documented by the schema with its default behavior (system temporary directory). The description adds nothing beyond what the schema already provides for this parameter. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies — the schema handles the documentation burden adequately.

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 it captures a screenshot with widget ID overlays for debugging and inspection. It uses a specific verb ('Capture') plus resource ('screenshot') and a distinctive modifier ('with widget ID overlays'). It differentiates itself from `imgui_screenshot` (plain capture) and `imgui_screenshot_widget` (likely single-widget capture) through the overlay feature, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 a debugging/inspection use case ('for debugging and inspection') which gives contextual direction. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over `imgui_screenshot` or `imgui_screenshot_widget`, nor does it mention any alternatives or exclusions. The use case is implied but not made explicit with named sibling comparisons.

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