get_screenshot

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond annotations: auto-recovery of clipped/off-canvas nodes with recovered:true flag, empty:true for nodes that render nothing, base64 null for missing/non-exportable nodes, and format defaults. It complements the readOnlyHint annotation effectively.

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 well-structured paragraph with no extraneous words. It front-loads the core purpose and then details edge cases and defaults. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 absence of an output schema, the description fully compensates by detailing the return structure and all edge cases (missing nodes, recovery, empty renders). It covers all parameters and their implications, making the tool's behavior predictable without additional documentation.

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 100%, but the description adds value by explaining default values (scale=1, format=PNG) and clarifying that scale applies only to raster formats. It also describes the return behavior for nodeIds (null for missing, edge cases). This goes beyond the schema's basic parameter descriptions.

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: 'Export nodes as base64 images' and details the output structure. It specifies formats (PNG/JPG/SVG) and includes edge cases like recovered and empty flags. This level of detail makes the tool's function unambiguous and distinct from sibling export tools like export_pdf or save_screenshots.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where sibling tools like save_screenshots (possibly persistent storage) or export_pdf might be preferred. The agent must infer usage from the output format alone.

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