screenshot

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses rich behavior: describe mode returns Haiku text with 15-100x fewer tokens, raw forces path return, camera/angle/zoom semantics, angles Euler syntax, supersample range, framing controls, highlight bbox format, show_colliders wireframes, and annotation_id auto-selecting annotation_frame. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but well-structured with line breaks, front-loads the core capture/describe behavior, and every clause maps to a parameter or behavior. It is appropriately sized for 16 parameters, though the telegraphic style could be slightly clearer.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (16 parameters) and absence of output schema, the description covers many behaviors but fails to explicitly state the return format when describe is absent, and it does not clarify path vs output_path or width/height defaults. These are notable gaps for a complex 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates extensively by explaining most parameters: describe, raw, camera, angle, zoom, angles, supersample, offset/fixed_size, highlight, show_colliders, and annotation_id. However, it leaves width/height and the distinction between path and output_path underspecified.

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 identifies the tool as capturing a screenshot, with path output and describe mode, and uses screenshot-specific terms (camera, angle, zoom, supersample) that distinguish it from siblings like scene or get_hierarchy. The verb 'Capture' plus resource 'screenshot' is specific and unambiguous.

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 capturing visual state, especially via describe mode for token-efficient text, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. Context is present but no exclusions or comparisons are given.

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