take_screenshot

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals no behavior whatsoever beyond being an alias - no mention of what the screenshot captures, dimensions, return format, or side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 short sentence that front-loads the key information ('Compatibility alias') and names the canonical counterpart. It is appropriately terse given the tool's trivial nature, with no wasted words.

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 that this is a compatibility alias with zero parameters and no output schema, the contextual burden is low. However, it fails to disclose the actual behavior (what the screenshot captures, return format), deferring entirely to the sibling 'screenshot'. For a trivial alias, this may be acceptable, but it relies on the agent already understanding the screenshot tool.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. With no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 is appropriate - the description and schema are complete on this dimension.

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 states 'Compatibility alias for screenshot,' which tells the agent this tool is effectively the same as screenshot. It identifies the intended resource (screenshot) but provides no verb or direct purpose; the actual function must be inferred from the sibling 'screenshot.' It does implicitly distinguish itself from siblings by naming screenshot as the canonical tool.

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 the tool is a compatibility alias rather than a primary tool, suggesting users/agents should prefer 'screenshot'. It names the canonical alternative but doesn't explicitly state 'use screenshot instead of this' or describe any conditions for when this alias is preferable.

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