take_screenshot

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

The description discloses that the tool captures a PNG and returns file path, width, and height. It does not mention side effects (e.g., file overwriting), performance implications, or error conditions. With no annotations provided, the description partially fulfills the transparency burden but leaves gaps.

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 concise with four sentences, each serving a purpose: statement of action, mode explanation, return value list, and guidance on viewing the image. It is front-loaded and free of irrelevant details.

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 no annotations and no output schema visibility, the description covers the core functionality and return values. However, it lacks details on file path behavior (default location, naming), error handling, and environment assumptions. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It adequately describes the 'mode' parameter with examples, but the 'file_path' parameter is not explained at all. This leaves a key parameter undocumented, reducing the tool's usability.

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 uses the verb 'Capture' and specifies the resource 'editor to a PNG'. It distinguishes between two modes ('viewport' and 'window') with specific explanations, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. No sibling tools directly compete, so purpose is distinct.

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 guidance on choosing between modes ('viewport' vs 'window') and suggests using the Read tool after capture. However, it does not discuss broader usage context, prerequisites, or when to avoid using this tool. No alternatives are mentioned, which is acceptable given the unique functionality.

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