fl_screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and only discloses a cost tradeoff. It never says what the call returns (image payload, base64, path), whether it waits for the page to render, or whether it captures viewport vs. full page, which is critical for a screenshot tool.

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?

Two very short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the cost caveat second. Efficient, though 'snapshots are much cheaper' is telegraphic enough to require inference.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage. For a tool whose entire value is a visual artifact, omitting the return format and the meaning of 'full' leaves the agent under-informed about what it will receive.

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 0% for two parameters. 'Screenshot of a tab' loosely implies the required 'tab' argument, but the 'full' boolean is never explained, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Screenshot of a tab') and explicitly contrasts with the sibling fl_snapshot on cost. An agent can tell what it produces and why it differs from the snapshot tool, though what a 'tab' handle is remains implicit.

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?

'Only when the visual layout matters' gives a clear selection condition, and 'snapshots are much cheaper' names the preferred alternative. It stops short of stating when-not beyond that single tradeoff, but the routing signal is unambiguous.

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