simscale_screenshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds useful context by specifying the scope ('current visible viewport') and output format ('PNG image'), but it does not disclose how the image is returned (e.g., file path, base64, URL) or any edge-case behavior. This is a moderate addition beyond 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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Capture.' Every word contributes to the meaning, with no redundancy or filler. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and output format.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete for an agent to understand its core function. The primary gap is the lack of explicit detail on the return value (e.g., how the PNG is delivered), but for a screenshot tool in a browser automation context, this may be implicit. Annotations provide safety context, so the description adequately covers the essentials.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details. It appropriately focuses on the tool's behavior without referencing non-existent parameters.

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 states the tool's function: 'Capture the current visible SimScale viewport as a PNG image.' It uses a specific verb ('Capture'), specifies the resource (visible SimScale viewport), and the output format (PNG image). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform actions like navigation, clicking, or filling.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when a screenshot of the current viewport is needed. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous given the sibling tools are all interaction actions. No alternative screenshot tool exists among siblings, so there's no confusion about when to use it.

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