View selected screenshot references

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. 'Fetch... and return' implies a read-only operation, and the 'approved' qualifier plus 'one visual comparison board' constrains what the tool accepts and produces. However, it never explicitly confirms the absence of side effects, states what happens with invalid IDs, or describes permission/authorization requirements, leaving part of the disclosure burden unmet.

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 sentences with zero filler: the first delivers the core fetch-and-return behavior, and the second delivers the when-and-why usage guidance. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded in the opening clause. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool whose schema fully documents the input, the description covers the essentials: what it does, when in the workflow to call it, and that it produces a single visual comparison board. With no output schema, 'return one visual comparison board' is the only return-format information, and it does not specify whether the board is an image URL, rendered HTML, or file path. Error/failure behavior is also unstated, so a 4 rather than a 5 is appropriate.

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%; the schema already documents that screenshot_ids are 'Approved screenshot IDs returned by search_screenshots or get_screenshot_set,' including provenance and constraints (min 1, max 6, minLength 3). The description's 'approved niceapps.club screenshots' reinforces the schema's qualifier and adds the domain context, but adds little beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct 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 opens with a precise action and outcome: 'Fetch selected approved niceapps.club screenshots and return one visual comparison board,' naming the verb, resource, and output format in a single clause. The phrase 'one visual comparison board' hints at differentiation from siblings like get_screenshot_set, which presumably returns raw screenshot data. It does not explicitly name the sibling it is not, so it falls one step short of the strongest definitions.

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?

'Use after retrieval and visually inspect the actual compositions before proposing art direction' places the tool explicitly in the workflow, telling the agent exactly when in the pipeline it belongs. 'Annotations alone are insufficient' supplies the selection rationale, explaining why this tool is necessary rather than skipping it. It provides clear context but does not name excluded alternatives or say when NOT to use it, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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