get_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 discloses key behavioral traits: automatic segmentation for large frames, returns base64 image(s), and scale control for resolution. However, it lacks details on error handling, performance implications, or specific output format beyond 'base64 image(s).'

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 well-structured with clear sections (WARNING, HOW IT WORKS, TYPICAL WORKFLOW), front-loaded with critical usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, and key behaviors. However, it lacks details on the output format (e.g., structure of returned images, pagination for tiles) and error cases, which are important for a tool with visual output and segmentation logic.

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. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning that scale controls resolution and segmentation occurs for large frames, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with the specific verb 'capture' and resource 'screenshot of a frame.' It distinguishes from siblings like get_frame_info (which provides structure details) and get_section_screenshot (which might target sections rather than frames), making the scope explicit.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool, including a WARNING not to use it as a first step and to always call get_frame_info first. It outlines a typical workflow with alternatives (list_frames, get_frame_info) and distinguishes from other tools by emphasizing its role for visual reference after understanding the structure.

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