list_screenshots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds nothing: it does not disclose pagination behavior despite a next cursor parameter, does not state ordering of results, and says nothing about what happens with an invalid set id. With annotation coverage the bar is lower, but this adds essentially no behavioral context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, so it is efficient. However, the terseness reads as under-specification rather than discipline, given three undocumented parameters and no return-value context.

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 paginated list tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description should at minimum explain the cursor/limit pagination model. None of that is present, leaving the agent to guess how to page through results or what the response shape is.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It implies the screenshotSetId scoping ('in a screenshot set') but explains nothing about next (a URI cursor) or limit (1-200), both of which are undocumented in the schema as well. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource with scope: 'List screenshots in a screenshot set.' This distinguishes it from the sibling list_screenshot_sets, which enumerates sets rather than the screenshots inside one. It stops short of naming the sibling relationship explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisite that a valid screenshotSetId must come from list_screenshot_sets, and no mention of the related upload_screenshot tool. Usage is only implied by the name, so an agent must infer everything.

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