Screenshot the nested display

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the capture mechanism (grim), output format (PNG), pixel fidelity, palette resolution, and inclusion of both Wayland and X11 clients. It still leaves out return-shape details such as whether the PNG is returned inline or as a file path, and does not discuss blocking behavior or multi-display requirements.

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 efficient sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and no wasted text. The coordinate-system note is also placed usefully at the end.

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 six-parameter screenshot tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description covers purpose and some behavior but does not explain how x/y/width/height act as crop or region parameters or how scale affects output. It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps for correct invocation.

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 only 33%, and the description does not explain the x, y, width, height, or scale parameters beyond noting that image coordinates match click/pointer_move coordinates. The schema already documents id and scale, so the description compensates for very little of the undocumented parameter surface.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it captures the composited display frame as PNG, with exact pixels and both Wayland and X11 clients included. It clearly describes a full composited display capture rather than a window capture, though it does not explicitly name screenshot_window as the alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by the mention of the composited frame and all clients, suggesting this is for capturing the whole display. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no direct routing to screenshot_window for window-specific captures.

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