take_screenshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action without explaining side effects (e.g., file saving, return behavior) or prerequisites beyond 'current page'. Important behavioral context is missing, such as the need for an existing browser session and what happens with parameters like return_for_ai.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence plus a legacy note. It front-loads the legacy flag and the alternative recommendation, making it efficient and actionable with zero wasted words.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description provides minimal context beyond the legacy warning. While the schema covers parameters, the description does not summarize the overall workflow or mention relationships between parameters (e.g., filepath vs return_for_ai). It is adequate for a simple tool but lacks completeness for nuanced use.

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 6 parameters, so the description does not need to add much. The description provides no additional semantic insight beyond what the schema already offers, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 captures a screenshot of the current page, using the verb 'take a screenshot' and specifying the resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by marking the tool as LEGACY and directing to interact_with_page, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use interact_with_page instead, providing an alternative tool. This gives clear guidance on when not to use this tool. However, it does not elaborate on scenarios where the legacy tool might still be necessary, but the alert to avoid it is strong.

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