Capture Referral Flow Screenshots

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false); the description goes well beyond them by disclosing that URLs are short-lived, that an `expiresAt` UTC timestamp is returned, that screenshots reflect the saved program at capture time rather than live installation state, and that a failed inline image does not prove URL expiry. That is exactly the kind of operational caveat an agent needs before interpreting results.

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?

Purpose and return contract are front-loaded in the first two sentences, with constraints following. Every sentence carries a distinct constraint, though the negative-acceptance list and the expiry caveat could be tightened slightly.

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?

For a single-parameter, zero-required tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the remaining gaps an agent needs: lifetime of returned URLs, capture-time semantics, and the distinction between a broken image and an expired URL. Nothing material is missing.

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 100% for the single `campaignId` parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Targets `campaignId` if supplied, otherwise `GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID`' restates the schema's default-resolution behavior without adding format or syntax detail beyond it.

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 and resource ('Capture temporary GrowSurf preview screenshots') and scopes it precisely to 'after a draft program is saved'. No sibling tool covers screenshot capture, so the agent can route to it unambiguously from the name and first sentence 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?

Gives a clear precondition ('after a draft program is saved') and explicit negative boundaries ('does not accept arbitrary URLs, HTML, JavaScript, or external screenshot targets'), which tells the agent when not to reach for it. It never names an alternative tool for adjacent needs, so it falls short of a 5.

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