util_screenshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that a screenshot is captured. It does not disclose the return format (e.g., base64, binary, URL), whether fullPage affects scrolling behavior, what delay does, or any side effects/requirements.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds meaning: the action, the target resource, and the key configuration areas. It is highly scannable and efficient.

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 tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description needs to cover more ground. It omits the return value, parameter behaviors, and any operational context, leaving an agent dependent on the sparse schema to infer how to use the tool correctly.

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 only 13%, so the description must compensate for the 7 undocumented parameters. It only gestures at 'device, viewport, and format options' without explaining delay, quality, fullPage, or the relationships between width/height and device. This is not enough for an agent to know how to set the parameters correctly.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Captures a screenshot of a web page.' It also names the main configurable dimensions (device, viewport, format), which makes the tool's purpose obvious and distinguishes it clearly from sibling util_* tools like util_tech_detection or util_broken_links.

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 gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings or alternatives. There is no mention of use cases such as visual regression, debugging layout, or verifying rendered content, and no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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