pcb_screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description must carry all behavioral disclosure. It only says 'capture screenshot' without mentioning any side effects (likely none) or what the output format is (e.g., image path, binary). It does not clarify if the screenshot is saved automatically or returned, leaving the agent uncertain about the return value.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple, zero-parameter tool.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least hint at the output type or any prerequisites. It does neither. An agent using this tool would not know if it returns a file path, binary data, or updates a UI. The description is too sparse to be considered 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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing about parameters (there are none), but the schema covers 100% of them (i.e., nothing to document). The description does not provide any additional semantics about how the screenshot is configured, but that's not required given no parameters.

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 action (capture screenshot) and the target (current PCB editor). It is specific and not a tautology. However, it doesn't elaborate on what exactly is captured (e.g., full window, active view), nor does it distinguish itself from any sibling (though no other screenshot tool exists). It's clear enough for a simple tool.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool or alternatives. There is no mention of typical use cases like capturing the board for documentation, debugging, or sharing. The description gives no context for selecting this tool over others.

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