browserbase_screenshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool 'returns' and 'saves as a resource,' implying output behavior, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'save as a resource' entails (e.g., format, location). This is a significant gap for a tool that performs capture and save operations.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. It could be slightly more structured by separating the capture and save aspects, but it's concise with minimal waste.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., image data, URL), error handling, or dependencies on other tools like browserbase_session_create. For a screenshot tool with potential complexity, this leaves gaps in understanding its full behavior.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 100% coverage, providing a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the 'name' parameter might be used for the screenshot, but this is already covered in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('capture a full-page screenshot') and the resource (screenshot), specifying it's full-page. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from potential sibling tools like browserbase_stagehand_observe, which might also involve visual capture, though the 'full-page' aspect provides some differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active session), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like browserbase_stagehand_extract, which might handle other types of data extraction.

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