imgui_screenshot_widget

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It states what the tool returns (screenshot path and widget location data) which adds value. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if the widget is not found, file write failures, or whether the screenshot can include off-screen widgets.

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?

Single sentence, efficient, no filler. It communicates the core capability and output in about 20 words. Could be improved slightly with structured formatting but is appropriately brief.

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 moderate-complexity non-destructive tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It doesn't describe the exact format of the widget location data returned, or how it handles edge cases. Given the sibling tools context with multiple similar screenshot tools, more differentiation guidance would improve 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (all 3 parameters documented). The description adds minimal value beyond schema: it clarifies that 'path' defaults to temp directory (also in schema) but doesn't explain the format of 'widget location data' return or how widget IDs relate to window IDs beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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?

Description states a specific action ('Capture a screenshot') with a clear resource (widget bounds). It mentions returning screenshot path and widget location data. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like imgui_screenshot or imgui_screenshot_annotated, though the widget-bounds focus differentiates it implicitly.

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?

Description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling screenshot tools (imgui_screenshot, imgui_screenshot_annotated). There's no mention of prerequisites like draw state, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over alternatives.

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