screenshot_live_window

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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: the capture is cropped to the window, and the response includes x, y, scale for pixel-to-screen mapping (valuable given no output schema). It omits failure behavior for unknown titles.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place, with the core action front-loaded and prerequisites and coordinate math following in logical order. No filler.

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 two-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the focus prerequisite, and the meaning of returned coordinates. Documenting max_width and behavior on a missing window would make it complete.

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%, so the description must carry semantics. The title parameter's meaning is only implied via the plug-in example and is never stated as an exact-match window title, and max_width is not mentioned at all, so compensation is partial.

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?

States a specific verb and scope: capture one Ableton window, cropped to just that window, with a concrete example ("Pro-Q 4"). This is clearly distinct from sibling list_live_windows (enumerates windows) and focus_live_window (raises one).

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?

Gives a concrete precondition — bring the window to the front with focus_live_window if something covers it — naming the sibling and the condition that selects it. It does not say what happens when the requested title matches nothing, which is the remaining gap.

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