browser_full_page_screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose meaningful behavior: the scroll-and-stitch mechanism, a hard 30-viewport cap (a real limitation), that it saves exactly one PNG, and that data_url output is large. It omits permission/auth needs and whether it waits for lazy content, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Opening sentence front-loads the mechanism, scope and cap, then a compact Args block covers each parameter. It is efficiently sized, with only minor overlap between the prose mention of saved_to and the Args entry.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description still tells the agent what it gets back (a saved PNG path via saved_to, optionally a data URL). Combined with the cap disclosure, this is complete enough for a zero-required-param screenshot tool, though auth/error behavior is unaddressed.

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, and it does: tab_id defaults to the active tab, save_to has a concrete default path (~/claude-zen-screenshots/fullpage_<time>.png), and data_url's effect and size cost are explained. It does not restate types, but all three parameters gain meaning beyond the bare 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?

States a specific verb and resource (scroll-and-stitch screenshot of the full document height) and clarifies scope (up to 30 viewports), which implicitly separates it from browser_screenshot and browser_element_screenshot. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the 'full document height' framing is enough for an agent to route correctly.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'full document height' framing, and the description notes that data_url is large, hinting at when to avoid it. However, it never states when to prefer this over browser_screenshot (viewport) or browser_element_screenshot, nor any prerequisites or wait behavior, so guidance remains inferential.

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