GenOffice app screenshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the CDP mechanism and the app-window prerequisite, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the window must be in foreground, whether app activation occurs), how the screenshot is captured, or any blocking/timeout behavior. For a capture tool with zero annotation coverage, this is thinner than ideal.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence and prerequisite+usage in the second. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 single-parameter capture tool, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, output format, and downstream usage. However, it lacks behavioral context like screen-focus requirements or failure modes when the app isn't running, the debug port is unreachable, or the path is unwritable. Adequate for a simple tool but slightly under-specified on edge cases.

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%, so the schema already documents outPath with an example. The description reinforces that outPath is where the PNG is saved but adds no new format constraints beyond the schema's .png example. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Clear verb+object+method: 'Capture a PNG screenshot of the GenOffice app window over CDP and save it to outPath.' This precisely states the resource (GenOffice app window), the action (capture PNG screenshot), the mechanism (CDP), and output location (outPath). Distinguishes cleanly from siblings like genoffice_app_status, genoffice_app_launch, and genoffice_extract_text.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisite ('Requires the app running with the debug port (genoffice_app_launch)') and a clear downstream usage suggestion ('Use together with vision to inspect the current UI state'). It says when to use the tool (to inspect UI state), though it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention the alternative for text interaction (genoffice_app_eval, genoffice_extract_text).

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