browser_screenshot

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 disclosure. It only says 'alias' and gives no information about what the tool does beyond the name, any side effects, return values, or limitations. This is essentially no behavioral transparency.

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 extremely short, which could be considered concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficient. It leaves out essential information about the tool's purpose and usage, so it does not earn its place as a useful description.

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?

Despite the tool's relative simplicity, the description is inadequate. It fails to clarify the alias relationship, specify return behavior, or provide any context about when to use it relative to the many sibling browser tools. The name and schema alone are not enough for reliable invocation.

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%, and both parameters (fullPage and _agent_id) have meaningful descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 '截图（别名）' means 'Screenshot (alias)', which identifies the tool's basic function (taking a screenshot) but adds only an ambiguous alias qualifier. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like browser_take_screenshot or browser_snapshot, and the alias target is unnamed, leaving the purpose somewhat vague.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The 'alias' label hints that it may be an alternative name for another screenshot tool, but it never explicitly states which tool it aliases or when to prefer it, so the agent receives no actionable usage direction.

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