Get screenshot texts

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already informs the agent that this is a read-only operation. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond confirming it is retrieval. No mention of error conditions, pagination, or performance. With annotations present, the description does not need to restate the safety profile, but additional context (e.g., what happens if appId is invalid) would improve transparency.

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, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without extraneous words. It is front-loaded and earns its place.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain the return format. However, it only vaguely mentions 'texts and their translations, per slot' without specifying structure (e.g., list, key-value pairs). Terms like 'slot' are undefined. This lack of output clarity makes the description incomplete for an agent to know what to expect.

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%, with both parameters well-described in the schema (appId as 'App ID (GUID)' and variantId as 'Listing variant ID; omit for the production variant'). The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline.

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 specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'screenshot headline/caption base texts and their translations', and the scope 'per slot'. It effectively distinguishes this retrieval tool from sibling tools like 'translate_screenshot_texts' or 'update_screenshot_text' which perform different actions.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The usage is implied by the retrieval nature, but no 'when-not' or alternative tool references are provided. The sibling tools include translation and update operations, so the agent must infer the appropriate use case.

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