apple_screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, but it only lists action names. It omits that area involves interactive rectangle selection, timed has a default delay, and confirm may be required for protected actions. These behaviors are only revealed in the schema.

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, front-loaded sentence followed by a compact action list. There is zero filler or redundant wording; every word earns its place.

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?

The schema richly covers the parameters, but with no output schema or annotations, the description leaves out behavioral context like the confirm requirement and interactive nature of certain actions. It is minimally sufficient for selection but not fully self-contained for correct invocation.

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%, and the action enum provides detailed descriptions for each value. The description's action list adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so it stays at the schema-driven baseline.

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 'Take screenshots on macOS' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly scoped to macOS, and enumerates the available actions (full, clipboard, timed, area, window). This distinctly separates it from sibling Apple tools like brightness, volume, or apps.

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 implies usage (whenever a screenshot is needed on macOS) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It is clear context but not actionable selection guidance.

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