pbi_screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description discloses output location (not repo), return objects ({path}, {clippedTo}, error structure), and matching logic (exact then case-insensitive contains). It does not cover permissions or side effects, but the read-only nature is inferred.

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, dense sentence conveying all key information. It is relatively concise but could be better structured (e.g., with separate sentences or bullet points) for readability. No extraneous content.

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 no output schema, the description covers return values ({path}, {clippedTo}, error case) and matching logic adequately. It could mention the output directory is configurable, but overall it provides sufficient context for a screenshot tool with 3 optional parameters.

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 0%, but the description explains each parameter's purpose: filename (optional), fullPage (optional), visualTitle (clips to matching visual with specific logic). It adds significant meaning, including error handling with candidates list, which is not in the schema.

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 it screenshots the reportView page, specifies optional parameters (filename, fullPage, visualTitle), and details clipping behavior. It differentiates from sibling tools like pbi_visuals by referencing the same visual logic for title matching.

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 implicitly covers usage (screenshots with optional clipping) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings, nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives. The agent can infer from context but lacks clear guidance.

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