eda_screenshot

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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing that the result is a native MCP image with pixel validity evidence, and by instructing the agent to inspect it visually. This goes beyond the annotation-only safety profile and clarifies what the call returns.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action and output are front-loaded, and every clause adds useful information: capture scope, optional region units, return type, and follow-up inspection guidance.

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 absence of an output schema, the description usefully states the return type and validity evidence. However, it omits guidance on when to choose this tool over state-inspection siblings, does not explain the target object's required fields, and leaves 'pixel validity evidence' vague. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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, but it only clarifies the region's unit ('in mm') and the general notion of capturing a 'target image'. The required nested target object, including windowId, projectId, documentId, and domain, is left unexplained by the description, and the schema property names alone carry most of the meaning.

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 a specific action ('Capture target image') and an optional scoped region, and it mentions the output type. It distinguishes this from state-inspection and workflow siblings by being the only capture/screenshot tool, though it does not explicitly contrast it with any 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 'inspect it visually' implies the tool is for obtaining visual evidence, which gives some usage context. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over state-based siblings like sch_get_state or pcb_get_state, nor does it specify when not to use it.

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