take_screenshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful details like 'Returns the public image URL (24h TTL) and metadata', but it does not explain what happens on failure, rate limits, authentication requirements, or how rendering works. This is partial transparency, not comprehensive.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The core action and deliverable are front-loaded, followed by a useful usage tip. Every clause 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?

The description gives essential output context (public URL, 24h TTL, metadata) and the schema fully documents parameters. It is not a 5 because there is no output schema and the description does not cover error cases or operational constraints like network reachability or rendering behavior.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the schema already explains url, delay, format, blockAds, fullSize, resolution, and blockCookiesGdpr. The description only reinforces fullSize and the format list, adding no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Capture'), names the resource ('a PNG/JPEG/PDF screenshot of any public URL'), and mentions the service ('WebsiteScreenshot.online'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like record_website_video and check_video_status, which are about video capture/status rather than static screenshots.

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 a usage hint ('Use fullSize=true for full-page captures') and constrains to public URLs, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over record_website_video or check_video_status, nor does it mention exclusions. Usage is implied rather than directly compared with alternatives.

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