pikvm_snapshot

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two important behaviors: save writes a full-size file to the local machine, and ocr performs text extraction. It omits what happens on failure, permissions needed, and crucially how the image itself is returned to the caller.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by a compact per-option list. Every line earns its place, though the fragmentary style ('max_width: shrink the picture (pixels)') reads more like notes than a polished description.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain how the captured image is delivered (inline data, file path, URL) and what save's file location is. It covers the options well but leaves the return behavior entirely unspecified, which matters for a tool whose whole purpose is producing an artifact.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: ocr, save, and max_width all get meaningful semantics beyond their bare types (text extraction, local file retention, pixel-based downscaling). The remaining gap is server, which is only obliquely covered by 'Needs one PiKVM (not "all")' rather than being named and explained.

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 concrete verb and resource: capture an image of the target machine's screen. This is clearly distinguishable from informational siblings like pikvm_info, pikvm_status, and pikvm_system_info. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool, but the action is unique enough that confusion is unlikely.

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 usage through the option list (ocr for reading text, save for keeping a full-size file on this computer) and adds the constraint 'Needs one PiKVM (not "all")'. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus siblings or statement of when not to use it.

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