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 mentions 'stealth browser' which hints at anti-detection behavior, but it does not disclose other relevant traits such as how the page is loaded (e.g., JavaScript execution), what happens on failures, or any return format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's runtime behavior.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it lacks the substance to fully support other dimensions, but as a concise statement it is efficient and appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the screenshot output looks like (e.g., image format, whether it returns binary data or a URL), or any additional context about usage, limitations, or integration with other tools. For a tool with four parameters and no output schema, this is a clear gap.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for all parameters with clear descriptions (url, width, height, fullPage). The tool description itself does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 takes a screenshot of a webpage using a stealth browser. This specific verb+resource combination ('take a screenshot of a webpage') clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like scrape_page or extract_data, which focus on data extraction rather than visual capture.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., scrape_page for text extraction). It does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases. The context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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