Capture website screenshot

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the output is for the agent to look at and that it may save to disk, but it does not disclose side effects like network access, scrolling behavior, or timeouts. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two sentences that front-load the core purpose with no filler. Every clause contributes relevant context: browser, output type, capture modes, and optional file save.

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 tool with 13 parameters, the description is minimal but sufficient for selecting the tool. It omits caveats like allowPrivateNetwork restrictions, clipping, or resource usage, but the schema and output schema fill these gaps. Adequate yet with clear gaps for a complex tool.

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 100%, so all 13 parameters are documented. The description adds a high-level summary of modes and output path, but does not provide semantics beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline 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 tool captures a website screenshot via Chromium, with three capture modes (viewport, full page, element). It specifically names the resource and the verb 'capture', distinguishing it from sibling tools like extract_assets or analyze_site.

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 implies use when the agent needs a visual screenshot by saying 'return a screenshot the agent can look at.' It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over siblings.

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