client_shot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so impressively. It discloses that the capture is 'measured rather than assumed,' explains the minimized state refusal instead of an empty result, and reveals a critical failure mode: what appears to be a successful capture can be a black image, so 'lit_fraction' is returned to disambiguate. This goes far beyond the schema and gives an agent real insight into what to expect.

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 moderately long but well-structured, starting with the core action in the first sentence and then adding behavioral nuances in tight paragraphs. Some phrases, such as 'the honest half' or 'dark frame is never dark' arguably are stylistic, but they still convey important expectations without unnecessary bulk. More precise language could trim a few words, hence not a full 5.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter schema and available output schema, the description provides complete coverage of the client's screen semantics. It addresses the main failure mode (minimized), the edge case of black frames, the meaning of 'lit_fraction', and the default output location. An agent has enough detail to call the tool correctly and interpret its results without further documentation.

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 describes the sole 'path' parameter only by type and default, with 0% description coverage inside the schema. The description compensates by explaining what happens when path is omitted: 'the file lands in this project's own .dayz-mcp/shots.' This adds meaning beyond the schema, though it does not fully specify the semantics of an explicitly provided path (e.g., whether it is a directory, full filename, or expected extension).

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Capture the client's window to a PNG.' This clearly distinguishes client_shot from sibling tools like client_press, client_chat, or client_move, none of which involve visual capture. The bold 'NO FOCUS NEEDED' additionally clarifies the operational constraint.

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 provides meaningful usage context: it explicitly states the tool works with the client both at the bottom of the z-order and in front, and warns that the only unusable state is MINIMIZED, where 'the client area collapses to 0x0 and there is nothing to copy.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, though it does not compare against alternative sibling tools because none exist for this purpose.

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