take_screenshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the PNG-file output fact beyond the name, but omits what 'screen' means (full display vs active window, multi-monitor), overwrite behavior, default save location, or failure modes. This is minimal behavioral context.

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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. 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 one optional parameter, the core action is stated, but ambiguity about capture scope and destination behavior remains. The description is sufficient for basic invocation but not fully comprehensive about what the resulting PNG contains or where it lands.

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 100% and the filename parameter includes a default value, so the schema already fully documents the parameter. The tool description itself does not add additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 states the specific action 'Capture screen' and the output format 'PNG file', which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It is distinct from all siblings like write_file and execute_command, so an agent can select it without confusion.

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 implies when to use the tool (when a screen capture is needed) but provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternatives might be more appropriate. The intended context is clear, but exclusions and comparison to siblings are absent.

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