caido_screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It discloses multiple behavioral traits: uses a specific layout, verifies the selected session, requires a rendered response by default, rejects stale previews, saves a PNG, and returns path plus metadata. This gives the agent a strong understanding of what happens during execution.

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, opening with the core action and then efficiently enumerating prerequisites and key behaviors. It avoids unnecessary verbosity while covering all essential aspects, 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 the tool (multiple preconditions, specific layout, output behavior), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when to use it. It clearly states the environment requirements, what is verified, and what is returned, without needing an output schema. The description is complete enough for operational use.

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 provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for each parameter, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add additional insight beyond the schema's parameter explanations; it merely references the default behavior of require_response without expanding on relationships or interdependencies.

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 captures a formatted screenshot of a Caido Replay request/response using the Screenshot Mode plugin, specifying the exact resource and action. It also distinguishes itself by mentioning the Side by Side layout and the plugin, which sets it apart from generic screenshot tools.

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 explicit preconditions for use (Caido running with --remote-debugging-port, Replay session open) and mentions key behaviors (requires rendered response, rejects stale previews). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, the specific prerequisites and layout make the intended use case clear.

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