browser_screenshot

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

There are no annotations to rely on, so the description must disclose behavioral details such as whether the screenshot captures the full page or just the viewport, what the return format is, or whether the action is destructive. The description provides none of this, leaving the agent with only the basic action.

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, clear sentence with no redundant or irrelevant words. It front-loads the action and is appropriately concise 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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a file path or binary data), how it handles optional parameters, or any side effects, leaving the agent without essential context for correct use.

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 already fully describes both parameters (format and quality) with defaults, covering 100% of the parameter semantics. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a 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 action (take a screenshot) and the target (current page), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browser_snapshot, which captures accessibility snapshots, by explicitly focusing on a visual screenshot.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_snapshot or browser_get_content, nor any prerequisites or conditions for use. The description simply states what it does without contextualizing its appropriate use.

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