Screenshot the schematic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool returns a PNG image, optionally saves it to save_path, and includes scope traces only when scopes are defined. It does not mention file-overwrite behavior, but the core side effects are transparent.

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 conveys the primary action, the return value, the inclusion condition, and the optional parameter without redundancy. Every clause contributes useful information.

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 simple one-optional-parameter capture tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned and the only optional side effect. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the description only restates what the schema already says about save_path ('optionally also saves it to save_path'). No additional parameter meaning is added beyond the schema's explicit 'Absolute file path to also save the PNG to.'

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Take a PNG screenshot of the circuit as currently drawn') and clarifies the included content ('including scope traces if the circuit defines scopes'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like circuit_export and circuit_load.

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 implies use for capturing the current visual circuit state and notes when scope traces are included, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as circuit_export. Usage context is present only by implication.

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