filmora_screenshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial context beyond that: the coordinate-space distinction (original window pixels vs displayed image pixels), the save=True filesystem side effect, the minimized-window prerequisite, and GPU artifact caveats. This goes well past what the annotations convey.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by tightly packed coordinate semantics, save behavior, prerequisites, and mode caveats. It is dense but every sentence adds operational value; no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description correctly explains the return contract (PNG image + coordinate metadata) plus the critical coordinate-mapping rules that feed click/drag/scroll. It covers prerequisites and mode trade-offs. Only hwnd targeting and max_width resizing behavior are left unexplained, which are minor gaps for a capture tool.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameter burden, and it explains three of five well: crop ('uses original window pixels'), save ('stores a uniquely named PNG in captures'), and the mode enum values (window vs visible capture behavior). hwnd and max_width remain undocumented, but the coverage of the key behavioral parameters exceeds what the bare schema provides.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Return actual MCP PNG image + coordinate metadata.' An agent immediately knows this is a screen-capture tool. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like filmora_snapshot_frame, but the added detail about coordinate mapping and window/visible modes makes the scope clear.

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 gives useful preconditions and mode-selection context ('Restore minimized windows first,' foreground requirement for visible mode), but never states when to choose this over alternatives like filmora_snapshot_frame or filmora_inspect. Usage is implied through operational caveats rather than explicit routing.

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