stm32_capture_ide_screenshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the core behavior and outputs: it captures a screenshot, returns dimensions and base64 PNG data, and can optionally write to a local file. It does not go deeper into side effects, such as whether the IDE window must be focused, whether desktop capture may include unrelated content, or any permission considerations. This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and every clause adds information about behavior or output.

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 simple two-parameter capture tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the action, output, and optional file behavior. It omits operational prerequisites such as requiring the IDE to be running or the window to be visible, but that is a minor gap given the low complexity and available output schema.

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. It does map 'window or desktop' to the window_only parameter and 'optionally saves to local file' to save_path, adding meaning beyond the bare parameter titles. It does not spell out defaults or path syntax, but the schema already expresses those structural details.

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 names a specific action ('Captures a screenshot'), specifies the target resource ('STM32CubeIDE window or desktop'), and states the output format. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like stm32_focus_ide_window or stm32_get_system_status, none of which perform screen capture.

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 the tool is for visually inspecting the IDE or desktop but never states when to prefer it over alternatives or what conditions should hold (e.g., IDE running, window visible). No explicit when/when-not guidance is given, though the absence of a screenshot sibling makes the use case fairly clear.

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