responsive_preview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the exact viewport widths and the Playwright runtime dependency, but omits whether output is inline images or file paths, how page-load readiness is handled, and any auth or rate-limit behavior for a read-style capture.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and viewport specifics; the prerequisite follows. No filler or redundancy.

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 with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is captured and the Playwright requirement, but leaves the return format (images vs. saved files) unspecified, which is the main thing an agent still needs to know.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%: the schema already documents target_url, its maxLength, http/https restriction, and private-IP blocking. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (Screenshot) and resource (a URL), plus the exact scope: three named viewports with pixel widths. An agent immediately knows the output is a responsive-comparison capture, though it never names the nearby siblings (visual_diff, inspect_page) to disambiguate.

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 phrase 'for responsive comparison' implies the intended use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to an alternative such as visual_diff or inspect_page when only one viewport or a diff is wanted.

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