take_screenshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: that it returns base64 image data, creates no files by default, and only creates files when outputPath is specified. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like what happens if no Electron windows are running, performance characteristics, or error conditions.

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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each earn their place: states the action and target, specifies the return format and purpose, and clarifies the file creation behavior. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 screenshot tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides good context about what the tool does and its behavior. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the return format structure or error handling, though the base64 return is mentioned.

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 schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions that outputPath is optional and defaults to temp directory (already in schema) and implies windowTitle is optional (already in schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Take a screenshot') and resource ('any running Electron application window'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_electron_window_info (which provides info) or send_command_to_electron (which sends commands). It explicitly mentions what the tool does and what it returns.

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 about when to use this tool (for capturing screenshots of Electron apps for AI analysis) and mentions the optional outputPath parameter for file creation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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