screenshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return format (base64-encoded PNG) but does not disclose side effects, whether the screenshot captures the viewport or full page by default, implications of the savePath parameter, or any waiting/network behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 two short sentences that front-load the core purpose. Every word earns its place: 'Take a screenshot of the current page or a specific element' immediately conveys scope, and the return type is specified in the second sentence. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, and the schema fully documents all three optional parameters, so the description does not need to repeat those details. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context on return value usage, potential errors, or behavior nuances (e.g., element screenshots may require visibility). The current description is minimal but not fully inadequate.

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 covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it references 'specific element' which aligns with the selector parameter, but does not elaborate on fullPage or savePath semantics. It neither compensates for schema gaps nor adds extra value.

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's purpose: 'Take a screenshot of the current page or a specific element.' It uses a specific verb ('take a screenshot') and names the resources (current page or element). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like navigate, fill, or evaluate, which serve different functions.

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 implies usage by mentioning 'current page or a specific element,' but it does not explicitly state when to prefer screenshot over alternatives like get_page_state, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions. There is no 'use this instead of X' guidance, so the agent must infer usage from the tool's purpose.

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