crawl_screenshot

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 discloses one behavioral trait: Windows paths are converted to /mnt/c/ format. However, it does not mention other relevant behaviors such as network access, headless browsing, whether the page must be fully loaded, or potential side effects like cookie usage. Given the tool's simplicity, the path conversion is helpful but insufficient for full transparency.

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 extremely concise: one purpose sentence plus a formatted Args block. The key behavioral note about path conversion is included without redundancy. The structure is clean and front-loaded, with the essential purpose stated first and parameter details following. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter screenshot tool, the description covers the basic usage and the path conversion quirk. However, it omits any mention of return values (though an output schema exists), error conditions, or runtime requirements (e.g., network access, browser dependencies). It is adequate for simple usage but leaves gaps that could cause the agent to call it incorrectly in edge cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. For 'url', it merely says 'URL to crawl,' which adds little beyond the parameter name. For 'output_path', it explains the Windows-to-WSL path conversion, which is genuinely useful and goes beyond the schema. This partial enrichment earns a 3 – it provides some semantic value but is not comprehensive.

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's purpose: 'Take a screenshot and save it as a file.' It specifies the resource (screenshot) and the action (save to file), which is specific enough. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like crawl_markdown or crawl_structured, but the name and action make it obvious it's for capturing screenshots rather than extracting text or structured data, so it's clear but not explicitly contrasted.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings. It does not mention any alternative or exclusion criteria. The only usage-related note is about Windows path conversion, which is a technical detail rather than a decision guideline. The agent is left to infer that this tool is appropriate when a screenshot is needed, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is provided.

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