screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two valuable side effects the schema cannot: 'bar: scroll there first' (the view moves) and zoom is 'restored afterwards' (state is reverted), which tells the agent the call is view-safe. However, it says nothing about the 'flow' parameter's effect on the captured view, nor about response format, size, or cost of the image.

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?

Two compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded and parameter notes following in a terse labeled form. The colon-fragment style ('bar: scroll there first') is efficient, though slightly telegraphic, and no sentence is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should stand alone. It correctly frames the return value as a picture and covers the view-mutation semantics, but omits any explanation of 'flow' and gives no hint about image dimensions, resolution limits, or how the zoom interacts with the default view — gaps an agent would hit on first call.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains two of three parameters — 'bar' triggers a scroll before capture, and 'zoom' is a percent with a concrete example ('200 to read dynamics and small markings') and a restoration guarantee. The third parameter, 'flow', is never mentioned, leaving it undocumented in both schema and description.

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 concrete verb+resource: it takes 'a picture of Dorico's score window', with the intent to 'check engraving by eye'. That is far more specific than the bare name 'screenshot' and there is no sibling that could be confused with it, though it never explicitly says it is the only visual-capture tool.

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 'to check engraving by eye' implies the use case — visual verification of layout/notation — but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no alternative tools are named for inspecting the score non-visually (e.g. describe_property or dorico_status).

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