get_section_screenshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: 'Makes other sections transparent (shows only target section),' 'Optionally includes transition elements context,' and 'Returns cropped image focused on section.' However, it lacks details on error handling, performance, or authentication needs, preventing a perfect score.

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 ('HOW IT WORKS,' 'TYPICAL WORKFLOW') and uses bullet points for readability. It is appropriately sized, though the workflow section is slightly verbose. Most sentences earn their place by adding practical guidance, but minor trimming could improve conciseness.

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 (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It explains the tool's purpose, usage workflow, and key behaviors. However, without an output schema, it doesn't detail the return format (e.g., image type, size), leaving a minor gap in contextual coverage.

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, mentioning 'sectionId' and 'transition elements context' but not providing additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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: 'Capture screenshot of a specific section within a frame.' It specifies the verb ('capture'), resource ('screenshot'), and scope ('specific section within a frame'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_screenshot' (which likely captures entire frames) and 'analyze_page_structure' (which identifies sections).

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 and how to use this tool. It states: 'First call analyze_page_structure to identify sections' and outlines a 'TYPICAL WORKFLOW' with step-by-step instructions, including alternatives like 'get_frame_info with section context.' This clearly differentiates it from other tools and provides practical usage context.

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