screenshot_brand

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the rendering mechanism and a hard prerequisite, which is meaningful, but says nothing about whether existing files are overwritten, what permissions or environment the node compositor needs, or failure modes when the layout step was skipped.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the outcome, followed by a parenthetical that carries the mechanism, prerequisite, and alternative with zero filler. Every clause 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?

The output schema covers return values and the prerequisite chain is stated, so the tool is callable in broad strokes. However, for a tool whose only parameter is completely undocumented, the definition leaves a real gap about what marketing_dir must point at.

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% for the single parameter, and the description never mentions marketing_dir — not its expected path, structure, or contents. The one piece of input documentation an agent needs is absent from both schema and description.

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+resource ('Branded App Store screenshots') plus the rendering mechanism ('node compositor', 'Claude Design store layout'). It explicitly names two siblings (screenshot_apply_layout, screenshot_build_all) and how they relate, so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite ordering ('run screenshot_apply_layout first') and names the shortcut alternative ('screenshot_build_all does both'), which is exactly the routing information an agent needs. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool or what happens if the prerequisite is skipped.

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