screenshot_webpage

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

Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the headless Chromium engine, fixed viewport size (1440x900), PNG output, file path return, and dependency on playwright installation. While it does not cover error handling or full-page behavior, it provides adequate transparency for a simple screenshot tool.

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: four sentences covering action, return, use case, parameter detail, and setup. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 screenshot tool, the description covers the essential aspects: input (url), output (file path), and purpose. It lacks details on timing or error conditions but is complete enough given the presence of an output schema and straightforward nature of the tool.

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 compensates well. It explains the save_path parameter as 'optional absolute path for the PNG; auto-generated if omitted', adding meaning beyond the schema. The url parameter is self-explanatory and needs no further elaboration.

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 action 'Take a 1440x900 screenshot', resource 'webpage', format 'PNG', and the return value 'file path'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like fetch_webpage and search_web by emphasizing visual inspection for design cloning.

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 a clear use case: 'visually inspecting a site's appearance and layout before cloning its design.' While it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, the context is well-defined and sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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