screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the file destination, the file naming convention, and the fact that the image is returned for inspection. The full page vs. visible window behavior is documented in the schema, adding further transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a precise usage instruction and a file naming note. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 tool with a complete input schemahare, the description plus schema covers what is saved, where, how to name it, and what is returned. It is slightly incomplete only in not distinguishing itself from the similar sibling tools capture and snapshot.

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 both parameters are already documented well. The description adds the file naming pattern 'screens/<size>-<name>.png', which slightly enriches the name parameter, but does not meaningfully compensate beyond the schema baseline.

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 verb and resource: save a screenshot of the current page into the report folder as evidence, and return the image. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tools capture or snapshot, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Take one for each moment a finding refers to.' This is a clear context for when the tool should be used, though it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as capture or snapshot.

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