infomaniak_nodejs_app_thumbnail

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it discloses the return format (base64 JPEG data URL), the caching behavior with `refresh=true`, and the access restriction ('Manager-private'). Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent, so this additional context is valuable and does not contradict them.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes only essential information: purpose, use case, and refresh parameter behavior. Every sentence adds value with no redundant phrasing.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, output format, caching behavior, and access restriction. With an output schema present and simple parameters (no nested objects), this is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The low parameter description coverage is mitigated by the tool's straightforward nature.

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 schema covers only `refresh` with a description; `hosting_id` and `vhost_route_id` lack descriptions. The tool description mentions the app but does not clarify these required identifiers. However, their names are fairly self-explanatory in the Infomaniak context, and `refresh` behavior is well-described in both the schema and description, providing some compensation for the low coverage.

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 tool's function: 'Get a screenshot of the running Node.js app as a base64 JPEG data URL.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that uniquely distinguishes it from sibling tools like infomaniak_nodejs_app_logs or infomaniak_nodejs_app_status. No ambiguity.

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 for when to use it: 'Useful to visually confirm the app is alive without HTTP-probing.' It also explains the `refresh` parameter use case. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, though the context implies it is distinct from other Node.js tools.

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