cited_screenshot

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

Since no annotations are present, the description must carry the burden. It accurately describes the core behavior: rendering a page, drawing highlights on extracted text items, and returning a JSON with an image. It also specifies the filtering behavior of search_phrase. It does not cover edge cases (e.g., out-of-range page_number), but the main behavior is 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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose, immediately followed by the return format. Two sentences efficiently cover the tool's function and output, with no filler or redundant repetition of schema fields.

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 description, combined with the fully documented schema, provides a complete picture of the tool's purpose, parameters, and return format. It lacks some context about error handling or performance, but these are not critical for a simple rendering tool. The inclusion of the return JSON structure in the description enhances 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema; it restates the search_phrase filtering behavior and output format, but does not clarify parameter-level details like coordinate format or color validation, which are already in the schema.

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 a specific action ('Render a single PDF page as a PNG') with a distinctive feature (bounding-box highlights over extracted text items, optionally filtered by search_phrase). This differentiates it from siblings like screenshot_pdf (likely without highlights) and parse_pdf (text extraction).

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: when you need a rendered PDF page with highlights for visual inspection or verification. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., screenshot_pdf for plain rendering). No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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