chrome_screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does disclose one meaningful side-effect guarantee: background tabs are not activated. It also clarifies that the artifact is written to disk. It does not address outcomes like return values, default target selection when no targetId/selectors are given, or failure modes, but the disclosed behaviors are accurate and useful.

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 sentence front-loads the action and outcome and contains no filler. Every phrase (CDP, save to disk, no background activation) carries 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?

Despite a rich schema, the overall definition fails to explain what happens when none of targetId/urlIncludes/titleIncludes are provided, whether a launched Chrome is assumed, or what the tool returns after saving. The added 'without activating background tabs' helps, but for a tool with 8 optional parameters and no output schema or annotations the description is not complete enough.

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 high (88%), so the parameters are already well documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds modest context by explaining why the background behavior matters, but it does not elaborate on path, format, fullPage, or target matching beyond the schema.

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 names a specific action ('Capture a screenshot'), a resource ('of a Chrome tab'), a mechanism ('via CDP'), and an output ('save it to disk'), so the core purpose is unmistakable. It also states a distinguishing behavior ('without activating background tabs'). It does not explicitly differentiate from the similarly named sibling chrome_snapshot, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'without activating background tabs' communicates a useful use case: screenshotting without disturbing tab focus. However, the description never states when to choose this over chrome_snapshot or what prerequisites are needed (e.g., a launched Chrome session), and it gives no exclusions.

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