Capture Screenshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It omits the side effect that it writes a PNG to disk (only the schema hints at this), says nothing about output format, permissions, or whether the capture is of the full screen versus a window. The 'measurement rulers' detail is the sole behavioral content.

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 lean sentence with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably terse given the tool writes a file and has two configurable parameters.

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?

An output schema exists and schema coverage is complete, so return-value explanation is not needed. Still, for a tool with a disk-write side effect and no annotations, and with a near-identical sibling (capture_and_analyze), the description is thin on the details an agent needs to choose and call it correctly.

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 both parameters (filename, include_mouse) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond the baseline, and notably does not mention the cursor/mouse behavior that include_mouse controls.

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 ('Capture the screen') plus a distinguishing detail ('with measurement rulers drawn on the result') that separates it from analyze_screenshot and compare_images. However, it never contrasts itself with the closest sibling, capture_and_analyze, so an agent must guess which capture tool is appropriate.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. Given siblings like capture_and_analyze and analyze_screenshot, the description leaves the selection decision entirely to inference.

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