job_screenshots

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are tied to step and verdict and are reviewer-facing, but says nothing about ordering (seq is listed but not explained) or result volume limits.

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 compact sentences, front-loading the resource, field list and the filtering capability. The parenthetical field enumeration is dense but earns its place by previewing the payload.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value exposition is optional, and the description still gives a useful field preview. For a single-required-param read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, nothing an agent needs in order to call it is missing.

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 100% and the schema descriptions are richer than the prose (e.g. 's4', 'unassigned', the reason vocabulary). The description's 'Filter by step/reason' adds no detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific resource (a job's screenshots) with the fields returned and the step/verdict association, so the agent knows this is a retrieval of captured imagery. It does not explicitly contrast with the nearby job_request_screenshot, leaving sibling differentiation implicit.

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 image context a reviewer pulls after a run' implies post-run review usage, and 'Filter by step/reason' hints at narrowing. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus job_request_screenshot (which creates a capture) or when not to filter.

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