screenshot_gowitness

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output location (/tmp/gowitness/) and the underlying tool, which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, authorization requirements, or failure conditions, so it could be richer. Still, it provides useful behavioral context.

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 two brief sentences, front-loaded with the main action and then the output location. No wasted words, clear and efficient.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the essential context: what it does, the tool used, and where outputs are saved. It lacks notes on prerequisites or error conditions but is largely complete for its scope.

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 100% for the single parameter, and the description's mention of 'URL a capturar' aligns closely with the schema's own description. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 (captures screenshot), the resource (web application), the tool (Gowitness), and the purpose (document evidence). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools, which focus on scanning or enumeration rather than screenshotting.

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 for documenting evidence but does not explicitly provide when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. It lacks explicit contextual boundaries, though the purpose is fairly explicit for its straightforward function.

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