browser_screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only states that a PNG is saved. It does not disclose side effects such as where the file is written by default, whether an existing file is overwritten, whether the operation requires an active tab, or whether it is safe/read-only. The output format disclosure is the only behavioral detail present.

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 with no filler. However, given the tool has three undocumented parameters and no annotations, the terseness leaves important context unaddressed, making it slightly under-specified for the complexity involved.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description still fails to cover the three input parameters, usage context, or behavioral side effects. For a tool with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, this is insufficient to call it correctly in all cases.

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 three parameters (full_page, tab_index, output_path), and the description mentions none of them. It says 'active page,' which actually conflicts with the tab_index parameter that allows targeting a different tab, and it does not explain full_page or output_path at all. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare parameter names.

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 states a specific verb ('Capture') and resource ('screenshot of the active page') plus the output format ('PNG'), so the core action is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like browser_get_content or browser_evaluate, but the tool's purpose is distinctive enough that an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_get_content for text or browser_evaluate for data extraction. It also omits prerequisites like whether a browser must already be launched or a page navigated to. The agent receives no routing information.

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