take_screenshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the interaction with the human Multi-screen setting, the batch-as-separate-images return, and the explicit note that it does not alter input control. It does not address the idempotentHint=false implication (screens can change between calls), which is a minor gap.

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?

Four short sentences, all load-bearing, with the core action front-loaded before the setting/parameter caveats. No filler or redundancy, though the final sentence is a niche caveat rather than essential information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return ('complete batch as separate images'). With one optional parameter, no required params, and annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it clarifies that 'primary' or a display connector is only selectable 'While on' and that connectors come 'from prior image metadata' — details not present in the schema text. Only one optional parameter, so there is limited room to add more.

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 resource ('Capture the device screens once') and immediately clarifies the return shape ('complete batch as separate images'). It is unambiguous what the tool does, though it never names or contrasts a sibling (the sibling list contains no other screenshot tool, so differentiation is less critical).

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?

Explains the triggering conditions for behavior: the default follows the human Multi-screen setting, and the 'screen' parameter is only relevant while that setting is on. It also states a non-behavior ('Does not change input control') that helps an agent decide it is safe to call. No explicit alternatives are named, but none exist among the siblings.

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