emu_screenshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the optional name behavior, .png appending, and the failure modes for a missing or wedged emulator. It doesn't describe the return format or where the image is saved, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 main purpose, then optional parameter behavior, then error cases. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how the parameter works, and when it fails. This is complete for an agent to select and invoke the 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?

The schema only says 'name' is a string or null with a default of null (0% coverage). The description adds substantial meaning: 'Optional name sets the file basename (.png appended if absent),' explaining the purpose and default behavior of the sole parameter.

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 uses the specific verb 'Capture' with a clear resource: 'one screenshot of the running emery emulator as an image.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like emu_start, emu_input, emu_logs, and emu_stop, which handle lifecycle, input, or logs.

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 implies a prerequisite: an emulator must be running. It also states it errors clearly if no emulator is running or it's wedged. This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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