screenshot_report_pages

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that images are written to output_dir (a filesystem side effect), that wait_ms controls visual rendering, and that results include warnings and rendering metadata. However it says nothing about required permissions, whether a live connection (connect_target) must precede it, or how failures are surfaced.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then scannable use-case bullets, Args, and Returns. Given 0% schema coverage, the Args block earns its space rather than duplicating structured data.

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 rendering tool with a large sibling set, the description covers purpose, invocation context, args, and return shape (even though an output schema also exists). The one real gap is prerequisite state — whether the report must be connected/open first — which the sibling connect_target implies but the description never states.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: all six parameters are named with meaning, and it supplies value sets the schema lacks (format: png/svg/pdf; resolution: desktop/mobile/tablet; pages as an optional page-name list). It stops short of 5 only because units/defaults and interactions (e.g. format vs resolution) are not clarified.

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?

States a specific verb (capture screenshots or structural wireframes) against a specific resource (Power BI report pages). No sibling tool does capture/snapshot work, so an agent can select it without ambiguity.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use triggers ('visually inspect or capture report pages for reviews or regression diffs', 'generate SVG wireframes or image snapshots of PBIR layouts'). No when-not conditions or named alternatives (e.g. audit_report_ux_and_storytelling), so it stops short of a 5.

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