IDE screenshot

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes the safety profile, and the description is consistent with it. It adds useful context about capture scope (whole window vs active editor, 'as the user does'), but says nothing about the returned image's format, size, or whether it reflects only currently rendered UI.

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 no filler. The capture target comes first and the examples of what can be seen follow, so the agent gets the core action before any elaboration.

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 two-parameter, zero-required, read-only capture tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential decision (what to capture and why). The main residual gap is what the caller receives — raw image content versus a file reference — which matters for a screenshot tool.

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 50% — `project` is documented in the schema but the `target` enum is not. The description compensates by defining what each target means: the full window versus 'just the active editor area', which is more informative than the bare enum values. The `project` defaulting behavior is left to the schema.

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: 'Capture Android Studio's window (or just the active editor area) as an image.' The mention of Android Studio's own window implicitly separates it from the sibling `screenshot` (device screen), but it never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 enumeration of what becomes visible ('Compose previews, the layout editor, tool windows and error balloons as the user does') implies when this tool is the right choice — visual inspection of IDE state. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no pointer to the `screenshot` sibling for device-level captures.

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