screenshot_capture

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real signal: the capture is raw (unprocessed) and lands at a fixed path, implying a filesystem write. It says nothing about overwrite behavior for an existing file, error modes when no booted device exists, or whether the operation is safe to repeat, which is meaningful missing context on a write-to-disk tool.

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 short sentence that front-loads the action and ends with the resulting path; there is no filler. It is arguably too terse for four required parameters, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 explained, but for a four-required-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and zero annotations the description leaves too much unstated: what marketing_dir and udid mean, how the file is named on collision, and when to prefer this over the other screenshot tools. It is not sufficient on its own to invoke correctly.

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% across four required parameters, so the description must compensate. The path template maps <locale> and <name> to filename segments and implies marketing_dir is the root of that tree, but udid is only obliquely referenced through 'booted simulator' and never tied to a specific argument.

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 concrete action (raw capture) and its source (the booted simulator) plus the deterministic output path, so an agent can tell it captures a simulator screen to disk. It does not distinguish itself from near-neighbors like build_screenshot, screenshot_brand, or screenshot_generate_sample, leaving that differentiation to the name alone.

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 precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion for the branding/layout screenshot siblings, and no statement of what happens if the simulator is not booted. The reader must infer the entire usage context from the name and the path template.

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