wb_screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses bounded retries, that the original file is preserved, and that oversized images are downscaled into JPEG previews with dimensions reported. What is missing is prerequisite context (an active session/current tab is required) and where the artifact lands when no path is given.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the output guarantees. Every clause (retries, preservation, resizing, dimensions) carries information an agent needs; nothing is padding.

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 6-parameter, zero-required, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers output behavior but omits the prerequisite that a live session/current tab must exist and leaves `path` (and the default save location) unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool this configurable.

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 83%, so the schema already explains format, quality, session, selector and timeoutMs; the baseline is 3. The description adds only the 'oversized images get resized' nuance and says nothing about the completely undocumented `path` parameter, so it does not compensate for the remaining gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Screenshot current tab') and clarifies the optional selector variant, which distinguishes it from sibling read tools like wb_snapshot and wb_get_text. It does not explicitly name the alternative for text/DOM extraction, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent infers you call this to capture a visual of the page. There is no guidance on when to prefer wb_snapshot or wb_get_text, no statement about needing an active session/tab, and no advice on choosing selector cropping vs. a full-tab capture.

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