fcp_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 implies a harmless read, but says nothing about what the returned image is (full screen vs. FCP window only), its format/resolution, freshness, or macOS screen-recording permission requirements. For a capture tool with no output schema, this leaves meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. The trailing purpose clause is useful, though the phrasing ("Screenshot of the screen") is slightly awkward and could be tightened into a verb-first statement.

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?

With no parameters and no annotations, the definition is low-complexity and the description covers the core intent. However, the most important unknown for a screenshot tool — what the returned image actually contains and in what form — is not addressed anywhere.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the capture is always of the current screen with no configurable options.

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 states a specific action (capture a screenshot) and the target (the screen / Final Cut Pro's current display), so an agent knows exactly what it produces. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the nearest visual siblings (preview_frame, render_preview, fcp_status), but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

"To see what Final Cut Pro is showing" implies the use case — visual verification of FCP's current UI state — but gives no explicit when/when-not guidance or pointers to alternatives like preview_frame for a specific frame or fcp_status for state. Usage is inferred, not stated.

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