browser_take_screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention optional overlays, element highlighting, and partial capture, which are meaningful behavioral traits. However, it omits key side effects like file creation/overwrite behavior, default to full-page vs viewport, and what the tool returns (e.g., a path or success flag). This is some value over zero, but not comprehensive.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately communicates the core action and key optional features. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 9 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain how parameters like fullPage, deviceScale, or quality interact, nor does it mention default behaviors or expected return values. The complexity of the tool is not matched by the description's 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description groups parameters into feature categories (overlays, highlighting, partial capture), which provides a high-level mental model. However, it does not add specific meaning beyond what the schema already describes for each parameter, so it neither elevates nor degrades the score.

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 'Capture screenshot with optional overlays, element highlighting, or partial capture' clearly states the verb ('capture') and resource ('screenshot'), while also distinguishing the tool from siblings like browser_snapshot or get_visual_map by highlighting its unique features (overlays, highlighting, partial capture). This is specific and unambiguous.

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 such as browser_snapshot or get_visual_map. It implies a general screenshot capture use case, but does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or context in which another tool would be more appropriate.

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