scout_screenshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden, and it does well by disclosing the JPEG format, viewport scope, and the 'LAST RESORT' nature of the tool. It could be slightly more explicit about side effects or what the caller receives, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 one dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It packs the main action first and the routing caveats after, though the long em-dash chain is slightly less scannable than a short two-sentence structure would be.

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 is complete enough for selecting and invoking the tool: it says what is captured, in what format, and when not to use it. With no output schema, it slightly underspecifies the result format or delivery mechanism, but that is a minor gap for a simple screenshot 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 the sole optional `session` parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is required beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Take a JPEG screenshot of the current viewport.' It also clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming what belongs in scout_snapshot and scout_design_audit instead.

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?

This is exemplary routing guidance. It tells the agent to use this tool only for pixel-native content that computed data cannot capture, and explicitly directs geometry issues to scout_snapshot, style/contrast/spacing issues to scout_design_audit, and broken-image checks to the BROKEN IMAGES section of scout_snapshot.

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