Preflight Screenshot Set

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the count constraints (min two, max eight) and the common one-screenshot failure mode, which is genuinely useful. The verb 'Check' and preflight naming imply read-only validation, though side effects are not explicitly discussed.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds a concrete rule or rationale that 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 two-parameter validation tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential scope, the exact count rules, and the reason set-level validation matters. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by treating image_paths as the complete set for a given type/locale and explaining that count rules depend on image_type. This helps the agent understand that the array must be a whole set, not a random sample.

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?

States the specific verb 'Check', the resource 'whole screenshot set', and immediately clarifies the value-add: Play's count rules. The contrast 'invisible file by file' distinguishes this from single-image preflight tools like preflight_store_image.

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?

Clearly implies when to use this tool: when checking a full screenshot set against Play's minimum/maximum count rules, rather than validating individual images. It does not name the alternative sibling explicitly, but the 'file by file' contrast makes the usage context clear.

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