cypress_get_screenshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the output is absolute file paths and that multimodal AI agents can read them directly, which is beyond what the input schema states. However, it does not mention whether this is a read-only operation or what happens if no screenshots are found, but the overall behavior is reasonably transparent for a simple lookup tool.

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 concise and well-structured, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence is front-loaded with the main action, and the second adds a valuable detail about the return type. Every word earns its place with no filler or redundant 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?

The description covers the return value and the general source (Cypress test failures), but it leaves ambiguity about which test run it refers to (e.g., the last run vs. all historical failures). The filters are described in the schema, but the description doesn't explain how they interact or whether they are optional. For a simple tool, this is adequate but not fully 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 input schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters ('Filter by spec file name' and 'Filter by test name'), covering 100% of the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or context about these filters beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: finding screenshot files from Cypress test failures. It uses a specific verb ('find'), specifies the resource ('screenshot files'), and provides a scoping detail ('from Cypress test failures'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with running tests, analyzing specs, or retrieving contexts.

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 implicitly conveys when to use this tool: when you need screenshot files from failed Cypress tests. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over sibling tools like cypress_get_failure_context or cypress_get_last_run.

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