bridge_screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the unsafe-for-pipeline nature, the need for a running desktop, the file-writing side effect, and the condition that allPages requires an on-disk PBIR definition. It also mentions return values. This goes beyond basic schema info, though it does not cover all potential edge cases.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the critical safety warning, then proceeds to action and usage details. Every clause provides value; no filler or repetition.

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 tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers prerequisites (running desktop, interactive attach), input selection logic, and output (per-page paths + status). It does not document error cases or side effects beyond writing PNGs, but it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% and each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds extra meaning by explaining the relationship between pageName and allPages (e.g., page GUID vs displayName, allPages requires PBIR definition), which enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 clearly states the tool captures pixel-accurate PNG renders of report pages from a running Power BI Desktop and writes them to outDir. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like bridge_status or bridge_reload.

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 clear context: it is the render-verification half of the edit/see loop, and explicitly warns it is 'UNSAFE-FOR-PIPELINE (interactive attach only)'. It explains how to choose between pageName and allPages. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools, just implies when this one is appropriate.

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