cypress_screenshots

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it accesses local files or a remote artifact store, what happens when there are no screenshots, or whether 'latest' affects the behavior beyond the schema description. The description provides minimal behavioral context.

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 short sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the main action and resource immediately. While it is quite terse, every word contributes to the core purpose, which fits the conciseness criterion, even though the substance is limited.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should at least indicate what the tool returns, such as file paths, image data, or a list of artifact locations. It also does not clarify whether 'project' is required, what happens when no screenshots exist, or how 'latest' interacts with the listing behavior. The description is too sparse for an agent to call this tool confidently in a non-obvious scenario.

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%, so the parameters are already documented in the schema. The tool description adds only the 'test failures' context, which relates to both parameters but does not meaningfully enhance understanding of 'latest' or 'project'. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 states a specific action ('List or get') and resource ('screenshots from test failures'), which clearly identifies the tool's domain and distinguishes it from siblings like cypress_output or cypress_list_specs. It is not a tautology and gives the agent a usable idea of what the tool does, though 'List or get' is slightly ambiguous about whether these are two modes or two operations.

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 'from test failures' implies the tool is appropriate when the agent needs screenshots generated by failed tests, giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over related siblings like cypress_output or cypress_clear_artifacts, nor does it provide any when-not-to-use guidance.

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