clo_ui_screenshot

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

The description adds the requirement for Screen Recording permission and warns about coordinate mapping (screen points vs image pixels) in clo_ui_state. However, with no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of explaining what happens when invoked; it does not state what the capture returns or where the image is stored, so the behavior is only partially transparent.

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 two sentences with the main action first, then key clarifications about the scope and a permission/coordinate reference. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant padding.

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?

For a simple tool, the missing point is the output: there is no output schema and the description only says the tool captures an image, without whether the image is returned as a file path, base64 string, or MCP resource. The permission and coordinate context help, but this return-value gap leaves an agent uncertain about how to consume the result.

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 zero parameters with full schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description contributes a coordinate-related note about the linked clo_ui_state that is meaningful for mapping state coordinates to the screenshot, which goes slightly beyond the basic 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 is headed by a specific verb+resource statement ('Capture CLO's window as an image') and clarifies scope ('including UI-only tools and dialogs') and differentiates from API snapshots, which are covered by the sibling snapshot tools. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

It establishes when this tool is useful: for capturing UI-only tools and dialogs that API snapshots don't provide. It helps the agent select it appropriately, but it stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating clear 'when not to use' conditions.

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