whodb_platform_app_screenshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, lowering the burden. The description still adds real context: the return payload (WebP image, visible text, diagnostics, optional trace), the constraint that hosted writes are blocked, and per-call targeting without mutating defaults.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then returns, then a constraint, then the workspace note. Four tight sentences with minimal waste, though the return-value and workspace notes overlap with structured fields and the title duplicates part of the text.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, yet it does so anyway, and it covers the safety constraint and targeting model. For a 13-parameter tool this is sufficient, with only the alternative-tool routing left unaddressed.

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% across all 13 parameters, including the nested actions and workspace objects, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of workspace {host, org, project} for per-call targeting largely restates what the schema already documents, adding no new syntax or format detail.

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?

States a specific verb (Capture) and resource (rendered app page) with the device-size scope, so an agent can immediately understand what it does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like whodb_platform_app_view or whodb_platform_app_views, but the screenshot/render semantics are distinctive enough to stand on their own.

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?

Usage is heavily implied: capture after optional actions or JavaScript, on compatible runtimes. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus an alternative (e.g., app_views for data vs this for a visual render), and no stated prerequisites or exclusions beyond 'hosted writes are blocked.'

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