mac_screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the result is returned as an image, but it omits side effects, failure behavior, whether a simulator must be running, and how the optional simulator selection affects behavior.

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 sentence with no wasted words and is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is concise, though slightly under-specified for parameter meaning.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain how the optional device parameter works, what prerequisites exist, and what the returned image represents. It only covers the basic action and return type, so an agent is left guessing about important calling details.

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 only parameter, device_name_or_udid, is undocumented in both the schema and the description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not compensate by explaining whether this parameter selects the target simulator or what happens when it is omitted.

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 uses a specific verb ('Take') and names a precise resource ('screenshot of the iOS Simulator on the remote Mac'), plus the output type ('return it as an image'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like mac_fetch_file or the device_* tools.

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 intended use is implied by naming the iOS Simulator on the remote Mac, which distinguishes it from physical-device tools. However, it does not state prerequisites such as the simulator needing to be booted, nor does it name when-not-to-use conditions or alternatives.

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