pcb_screenshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., image path, base64 data, or rendered artifact), whether it opens a UI, or whether any state is affected. This is a meaningful gap for a tool whose output is not schema-defined.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. For a parameterless tool, this level of brevity is appropriate and every word contributes 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient for selecting and invoking it. However, it does not explain the result format or side effects, which are important for an agent that must consume the screenshot afterward. The missing output semantics keep it from being fully complete.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema fully documents this with an empty properties object. There is no parameter ambiguity for an agent to resolve, and the description adds the only relevant semantic information: the operation targets the current PCB editor.

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 ('截取', capture) and a clear resource ('当前 PCB 编辑器截图', current PCB editor screenshot). It clearly identifies the tool's function and is distinct from all sibling tools, which perform editing, routing, or inspection operations rather than screen capture.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool, what situation it is designed for, or how it relates to alternatives. There is no implied context beyond the literal action, so an agent receives no help in deciding between this and other PCB tools.

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