computer_copy_image

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

Annotations already mark it non-read-only/destructive; the description goes beyond them by explaining the side effect (optional macOS clipboard write, which can overwrite the clipboard) and by clarifying the output is displayed-resolution rather than source resolution. A small caveat is that it does not elaborate on any other destructive or cache effects.

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?

Three focused sentences: the first states the operation and prerequisite, the second covers outputs and the optional side effect, and the third adds the important resolution caveat. No filler or nested repetition.

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?

The description tells the agent what the tool returns and one key behavior, but it does not provide enough instruction on required IDs or the prerequisite observation flow to guarantee correct invocation. The absence of an output schema raises the burden, making the missing parameter semantics a notable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the prose must define the parameters, but it only clarifies the clipboard option and the notion of a visible image in a fresh observation. It does not explain how to obtain or interpret sessionId, observationId, or elementId, leaving the agent to infer from names.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('copy'), a specific resource ('a visible image from a fresh browser observation'), and states the return artifacts (PNG and source URL). The mention of displayed resolution and optional clipboard makes it distinguishable from generic browser actions and computer_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?

The phrase 'from a fresh browser observation' gives a clear invocation context, and the resolution caveat implicitly guides selection when the rendered image is needed. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, 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.