browser_screenshot

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

The description doesn't contradict annotations (there are none), but it also doesn't add behavioral details beyond what's in the schema. The `fullPage` parameter's effect is partially inferred from its schema description, but the tool's side effects (e.g., whether it scrolls, what it returns) are not specified. Since annotations are absent, this could be more 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 extremely concise and to the point, with no filler or redundant information. It uses a clear structure with a single sentence that directly communicates the tool's function.

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 the simplicity of the tool (single parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but leaves some gaps. It doesn't mention what the return value looks like (e.g., image data) or any side effects, but these may be implicitly understood in a browser automation context. With no output schema and no annotations, a bit more detail about the expected outcome would improve completeness.

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 description adds minimal value for parameters since the schema already covers `fullPage` with its description. However, the schema coverage is 100% (1/1 parameter documented), and the description reinforces the parameter's purpose without conflict. The description doesn't add much beyond what's in the schema, but the schema already provides sufficient clarity.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('capture') and resource ('screenshot of the current page'). It distinguishes itself from other browser actions like navigation, clicking, and typing, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools or edge cases like capturing specific elements.

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 implies usage for visual inspection, which provides some contextual guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives (e.g., browser_extract_html or browser_extract_text), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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