build_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 does not disclose whether an existing file at out_path is overwritten, what permissions are needed, or what happens if no simulator is booted. For a file-writing tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words and the output target placed last for emphasis. It is arguably too terse, but nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the definition leaves overwrite behavior and UDID semantics unexplained for a two-required-parameter tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for two undocumented parameters. It clarifies only that out_path is a PNG destination and implies udid identifies the simulator; it never explains the UDID format or confirms which simulator to target.

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 (Capture) and resource (screenshot), plus the source (booted simulator) and output (out_path, PNG). It is clearer than most siblings, though it never distinguishes itself from the nearby screenshot_capture sibling.

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 'booted simulator' implies a prerequisite (a simulator must already be running, likely via build_boot_sim), but this is left implicit. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the screenshot_capture alternative.

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