sa_screenshotCapture the SAStudio4 screen as a PNG to the report folder using current settings. Include an optional note and label for documenting measurements in test reports.
Capture the SAStudio4 screen as PNG (saved to the report folder, with the current settings).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | Description/observation for the report | |
| label | No | Short name e.g. 'Hop band max hold' | screenshot |
| return_image | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the screenshot is saved to the report folder, but it does not explain side effects, overwrite behavior, filename generation, permissions, or what return_image changes. For a capture tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical adds useful save-location and settings context without becoming verbose.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, and one parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description does not explain return behavior, image-return semantics, file naming, or report integration details, leaving an agent with insufficient context for a three-parameter capture 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 67%, with note and label documented but return_image left undescribed in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, mentioning only 'current settings' and not explaining how note, label, or return_image affect the capture or report. It does not compensate for the uncovered parameter.
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 verb and resource: 'Capture the SAStudio4 screen as PNG.' It also specifies the output format and save location, making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like sa_view or sa_file, but the screenshot-specific 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?
The description implies report usage by saying the PNG is saved to the report folder, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not say when this tool should be preferred over sa_view, sa_file, or report_export.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.