macos_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. It mentions the action and capture modes but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as permissions needed (e.g., screen recording access), whether it overwrites existing files, error handling, or output details (e.g., success/failure indicators). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and lists capture modes without redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 the tool's complexity (mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and nested parameters), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions, file handling, errors, and output format, which are crucial for safe and effective use. The high schema coverage does not compensate for these missing contextual elements.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by hinting at capture modes ('full screen, a region, or specific window'), but it does not provide additional syntax, format, or usage details for parameters. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Take a screenshot and save to file') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'macos_screenshot_clipboard' by specifying the file-saving behavior. It explicitly lists the capture modes (full screen, region, or specific window), making the purpose unambiguous and 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 implies usage by mentioning capture modes, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'macos_screenshot_clipboard' (which saves to clipboard) or other image tools. It provides basic context but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or comparisons with siblings.

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