describe_screenshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the use of models (Florence-2, MiniCPM-V) and return type (dict with regions and model name), but lacks details on whether the tool is purely read-only, requires file system access, or has any side effects. It does not contradict any annotations since none exist.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, but it is slightly verbose (e.g., 'Absolute or relative path...' could be shortened). Still, every sentence adds value and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema exists (reducing the need to describe return values in depth), the description is fairly complete. It explains parameters, return structure, and model variants. However, it could mention error conditions or performance implications.

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 compensate. It does so effectively: explains image_path as absolute/relative path with supported formats, detail_level with meanings of 'normal' and 'high', and model_mode with model names and use cases. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Describe UI regions in a screenshot using Florence-2.' It specifies a specific verb (describe) and resource (UI regions in a screenshot), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like describe_image or ocr_image by targeting UI regions specifically.

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 mentions two model modes and detail levels, providing some guidance on how to use parameters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., describe_image). Usage context is implied through the purpose, but no explicit 'when to use' or alternatives are given.

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