screenshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly warns that clipboard mode replaces clipboard contents, existing files are never overwritten unless overwrite is true, the extension must match format, and Screen Recording permission is required.

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?

Two sentences deliver the core purpose first, then critical constraints and prerequisites. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers modes, destinations, overwrite semantics, extension requirements, defaults, and permissions. It does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., file path or success status), but the main invocation requirements are present.

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 the schema already documents all parameters and defaults. The description reinforces key behaviors like clipboard replacement and overwrite protection but does not add much meaning beyond 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 uses a specific verb ('Capture') with clear resource targets: full screen, region, or application window, plus destination options (file or clipboard). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like get_displays or get_clipboard.

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 clearly states the capture modes and when clipboard/overwrite behavior applies, plus the required Screen Recording permission. It does not explicitly discuss when to prefer a sibling tool, but no sibling directly competes with screenshot capture.

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