GhostDesk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by explaining the stabilization behavior ('Wait for the page to stop moving before capturing'), timeout constraint ('max 2.5 s'), and default behavior ('full screen if omitted'). However, it doesn't mention what happens on failure or the output format beyond format options.

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?

Perfectly structured with a clear opening statement followed by organized parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value: the first establishes purpose, and each parameter description provides essential context without redundancy. The formatting with bullet-like indentation enhances readability.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering parameter semantics and basic behavior. The main gap is lack of information about what the tool returns (image data format, error conditions), which would be important given the absence of output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: 'region' (area to capture, full screen default), 'format' (webp vs png with rationale), and 'stabilize' (behavior and use case). Each parameter gets meaningful context beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 specific action ('Capture the screen') and distinguishes it from all sibling tools (which are about app control, clipboard, and mouse/keyboard interactions). It provides a clear verb+resource combination that is unambiguous in this context.

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 clear context for when to use certain features ('useful right after navigation' for stabilize parameter), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since sibling tools are all different interaction types (not alternative screenshot methods), this is reasonable, but no explicit comparison is made.

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