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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks critical details: whether it requires permissions, how it handles multiple windows of the same application, what happens if the application isn't running, or the output format (e.g., file path, base64). This is inadequate for a tool that interacts with system applications.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity of capturing application screens (system interaction, potential permissions) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error handling, output location, or dependencies, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (applicationName and format). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of valid application names or implications of format choice. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('captures') and resource ('screenshot of a specific application window'), which distinguishes it from generic screen capture tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'capture_screen' or 'capture_screen_and_extract_text' beyond implying application-specific targeting.

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 versus alternatives like 'capture_screen' (full screen) or 'capture_screen_and_extract_text' (which includes OCR). It mentions 'specific application window' but doesn't clarify prerequisites (e.g., application must be running) or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't mention permissions needed, whether it requires user interaction, file storage behavior, error conditions, or rate limits. For a screen capture tool, this leaves critical operational details unspecified.

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, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for this simple tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., file path, base64 data, error handling) or provide behavioral context needed for safe invocation. The agent would be operating with significant unknowns about this system interaction tool.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'display number' means beyond the schema's '0 for primary display' or provide context for format selection). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.

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 ('Captures') and resource ('screenshot of the specified display'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'capture_application_screen' or 'capture_screen_and_extract_text', which would require mentioning this captures the entire display rather than a specific application window.

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 versus alternatives like 'capture_application_screen' or 'capture_screen_and_extract_text'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While it describes the core operation, it lacks important behavioral details such as permissions needed, whether it requires user interaction, potential rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like (text format, confidence scores). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides essential usage context about capture scope. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 complexity of a combined capture+OCR operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (text format, errors, or structure), system requirements, or behavioral constraints. For a tool with this functionality and zero structured coverage beyond inputs, more context is needed.

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%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the interaction between 'display' and 'applicationName' beyond what the schema already states). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('captures' and 'extracts') and resources ('screenshot' and 'text'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'capture_screen' (only captures) and 'extract_text' (only extracts). It explicitly mentions the combined operation in one step.

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 this tool (for combined screenshot and text extraction) and distinguishes between full screen vs. application window capture. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., 'use capture_screen if you only need a screenshot').

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core function but lacks details on traits such as performance expectations (e.g., speed, accuracy), error handling (e.g., invalid image formats), or output format (since no output schema exists). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how the tool behaves beyond basic OCR.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Extracts text from an image using OCR'), making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity of an OCR tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects like what the output looks like (e.g., plain text, structured data), potential errors, or performance constraints. This makes it inadequate for an agent to fully grasp the tool's behavior and usage.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters (imagePath and language). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining OCR limitations or language code nuances. This meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately covers parameter semantics.

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 ('extracts text') and resource ('from an image using OCR'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'capture_screen_and_extract_text', which suggests a similar function but with additional capture steps.

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 versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an image file), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'capture_screen_and_extract_text', leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

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 behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists applications, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify details like whether it requires permissions, how it handles errors, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, or output format, which are important for a tool with zero structured data support.

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 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline expectation for such cases, though it could theoretically note the absence of parameters more explicitly.

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 ('Lists') and the target resource ('all running applications that can be captured'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'capture_application_screen' or 'extract_text', which reduces it from a perfect score.

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 versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'capture_application_screen' or 'extract_text', leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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