charlotte_screenshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It adds useful context about the persistent behavior of save:true and the tool's fallback role. However, it does not disclose the default return format (e.g., inline base64), whether the operation has side effects beyond saving, or that it is a read-only action. These are notable omissions for an unannotated tool, but the provided behavior hints (persistence, fallback) prevent a lower score.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary verb behavior ('Capture a visual screenshot'), then a use-case clause, then a targeted parameter tip. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does more than a minimal effort by establishing purpose and usage guidance. However, it leaves important contextual gaps: the default return format (base64) is not mentioned, and there is no hint about how to later retrieve saved artifacts (e.g., charlotte_screenshot_get). This is adequate but not fully complete for an agent making an uninformed invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters with meaningful descriptions. The description adds a bit of extra context for 'save' (persisting as a file artifact) but largely repeats what the schema explains. It neither contradicts nor significantly enhances the schema's parameter documentation, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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+resource phrase ('Capture a visual screenshot'), clearly stating the tool's core function. It further distinguishes the tool from siblings by framing it as a 'fallback for when structured representation isn't sufficient,' referencing complex visualizations, canvas elements, and images—which implicitly contrasts with observation-oriented siblings.

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 provides explicit when-to-use context: 'Fallback for when structured representation isn't sufficient' and gives concrete example cases (complex visualizations, canvas elements, images). It also offers conditional parameter guidance ('Use save: true to persist as a file artifact'). It stops short of naming a specific alternative sibling tool or outright saying 'do not use for simple text/structured content,' so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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