quest_screenshot

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

No annotations are provided, and the description adds behavioral details: it auto-wakes the display and optionally saves to a PNG path. However, it does not discuss conditions like failure modes, connection requirements, or what happens if the display is off. It provides some context but not comprehensive behavior.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then behavior notes. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy.

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 screenshot tool, the description covers the main purpose, return value, auto-wake behavior, and optional save path. Since there is no output schema, it adequately explains the return. Minor gaps like explicit image format for the returned image are not critical.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage. The description explains the 'save_path' parameter (optionally saves PNG) but says nothing about 'device_id' beyond what the bare name implies. This partially compensates for the schema gap but does not fully clarify both parameters.

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 action ('Take a screenshot'), the target ('what's currently displayed in the headset'), and the output ('return the image'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing a still image rather than video (like quest_screen_record).

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 indicates the general purpose but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as quest_screen_record or specify when to use this over alternatives. The context is implied but lacks exclusions or alternative guidance.

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