tv_screenshot

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds value by disclosing the two possible return formats (file path or base64) and the PNG format, which are behavioral traits not covered by annotations. It also implies a local file save (via 'local file path'), which is a side effect beyond a simple read, and this is stated transparently.

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 just two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and target, followed by the return format. Every word contributes meaning with no redundancy or filler. It is concise yet complete.

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 simple capture tool with optional parameters, no output schema, and good annotations, the description fully covers the essential context: purpose, scope (active tab), and return representations. It does not need to explain return structure in detail since there is no output schema, but it clearly states what the agent will receive. The presence of annotations and full schema coverage reduces the burden, and the description meets that bar.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (name, format, fullPage), including an enum for format. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Capture a PNG screenshot'), the target resource ('the active TradingView tab'), and the return format ('local file path or an inline base64 markdown image'). This distinguishes it from other TradingView tools like tv_read_chart or tv_get_ohlcv, which extract data rather than visual captures.

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 'of the active TradingView tab' provides clear contextual scope, indicating it should be used when a visual capture of the currently visible chart is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but none are necessary given the tool's uniqueness among siblings. The context is sufficient without being directive.

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