browse_screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real value by explaining the return contract (path vs. base64), but it omits whether a file is written to disk and where, what image format/encoding is produced, and how full_page affects the result.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the action and the outcome. Nothing is wasted or padded.

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 low-complexity, 2-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the central return-type decision but leaves 'full_page' and output format unexplained. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'path' parameter's effect on return type, but the 'full_page' parameter is never mentioned and no format or default semantics are explained.

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?

Specific verb ('Screenshot') plus resource ('the page'), with the return behavior included. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling browse_snapshot, leaving the agent to guess which of the two to call.

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 statement of when to use this rather than browse_snapshot or browse_get_text, and no preconditions (e.g., page must be open/tab active). The agent must infer correct usage from the name alone.

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