Take a screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the return format ('image plus the saved file path') and that the AI can read the image, which is useful. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., open browser), potential side effects, or full_page interaction behavior.

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 concise sentences convey the purpose, scope, output, and AI readability. No redundant or filler content; every word 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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the main behavior and result. However, it omits contextual details like browser state requirements and full_page semantics, making it slightly incomplete.

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 covers 50% of parameters: selector has a description, full_page only has a default. The description clarifies 'page or of one element' for selector, but full_page behavior is left entirely to the schema's bare default. Description partially compensates for the coverage gap but not fully.

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 clearly states the action ('Take a screenshot') and the resource scope ('page or one element'), directly matching the tool's function. It is the only screenshot tool among siblings, so there is no ambiguity.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_text or browser_evaluate. It implies visual inspection ('The AI can read the image contents') but never explicitly states use cases or exclusions.

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