pt_screenshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and locality are covered. The description adds useful scope by specifying that the image is of the logical workspace as drawn in PT, but it does not disclose what the capture includes (labels, device states, annotations) or whether it reflects simulation state. For a read-only image tool under annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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 no filler, and the key scope (logical workspace, as drawn in PT) is front-loaded. It could be slightly more informative without becoming bloated, but it is appropriately sized.

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?

For a simple read-only screenshot tool with one optional enum parameter and no output schema, the description communicates the core return type (an image) and scope. However, it omits what the image contains, whether the canvas must be in a particular state, and anything about the fmt parameter, leaving some gaps for an agent deciding whether the tool is appropriate.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the sole fmt parameter at all. While the enum values PNG and JPG are self-explanatory from the schema, the description adds no meaning about format behavior, defaults, or acceptable values.

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 identifies the resource and output: an image of the logical workspace/topology as drawn in PT. This implicitly distinguishes it from pt_topology, which likely returns topology data rather than a rendered image. The phrasing is nominal rather than a verb, but the operation (capture screenshot) 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pt_topology or pkt_export_configs. The implied use case (needing a visual capture of the current logical workspace) is understandable from the description, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routes are stated.

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