screenshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it notes that physical view 'switches views for a moment' and that non-logical views capture the OS window, which are side effects not encoded elsewhere.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that packs the core action, view options, and optional save behavior without any filler. Every clause 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?

For a simple read-only screenshot tool with two optional parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs: what is captured, how each view differs, the side effect of physical view, and the optional save path.

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, but the description adds meaningful nuance beyond the schema: it clarifies the practical effect of `view: physical` (temporary view switch), the default logical rendering, and the purpose of `save_to` (e.g., for a lab report).

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 names a specific verb ('Capture') and resource ('Packet Tracer as a PNG image'), and enumerates the three view modes. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like show_workspace, so a perfect 5 is withheld.

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?

Usage is implied by the context 'for example for a lab report' and the enumeration of views, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as show_workspace or when not to use it.

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