generate_screenshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: rate limits (3/day for Free), authentication needs implied by plan differences, and output characteristics (watermark presence). It doesn't mention error handling or response format, but covers most critical operational constraints.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose first, followed by plan details. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential usage information. It could be slightly more structured with bullet points, but remains highly efficient.

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 (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides substantial context about plan limitations and behavioral constraints. It doesn't explain return values or error cases, but covers the most critical operational aspects for a tool with significant usage restrictions based on subscription status.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema - it mentions 'text overlay' which relates to headline/subheadline parameters, and 'iPhone mockup' which relates to device parameter, but doesn't provide additional usage context or constraints beyond what's already in the schema descriptions.

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 specific action ('Generate a Store ScreenShot') and the key features (text overlay, iPhone mockup). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'generate_batch_screenshots' by focusing on single generation and from subscription tools by describing core functionality.

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 explicitly provides when-to-use guidance by detailing Free vs Pro plan limitations: Free plan (3/day, watermark, limited presets/devices) vs Pro plan (unlimited, no watermark, all features). This helps the agent choose based on user subscription status and requirements.

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