Lipstick Screenshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral nuance that it both saves on-device and can pull locally, but omits what happens on repeat calls, whether files overwrite, and permission requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the optional local pull second. No wasted words, though it is very terse given the tool's five parameters.

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 five-parameter tool with no output schema and only 60% schema coverage, the description is adequate but thin: it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a path or handle), what privileged controls, or how the on-device path default interacts with local_path.

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 only 60%; device, timeout and remote_path are documented in the schema, but local_path has no schema description and is only implied by 'pulling it locally'. The description adds marginal meaning for local_path but leaves privileged and timeout behavior unexplained.

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 a specific verb and resource: asking Lipstick (the Sailfish compositor) to save a screenshot on the device, with an optional local pull. This is clearly distinct from the surrounding device tools (touch, journal, install_rpm), though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling it is not.

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?

'Optionally pulling it locally' implies when to set local_path, but there is no guidance on when to use this versus other device capture tools, no prerequisites (running session, device setup), and no explanation of when privileged or a non-default timeout is warranted.

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