console_screenshot

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that this is experimental, gated by an environment flag and allowlist, and depends on an existing visible interactive session rather than the guest framebuffer. It does not state failure behavior when no window exists, which keeps it from a 5.

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 with zero filler, front-loading the operation and following immediately with the critical scoping caveat and prerequisites.

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 three-parameter read that returns a PNG, the description covers the operational caveats and the output medium. With no output schema, it could say more about the returned image (dimensions, how it is delivered), but the essential call-path information is 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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never mentions vm_name, region, or max_width. The only hint is the word 'window' in prose, which loosely gestures at the region enum at best.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (PNG capture of a visible VMConnect window) and adds a key disambiguator: it does not read the guest framebuffer, which separates it from other capture paths. It does not name a specific sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Prerequisites are stated explicitly (ALLOW_SCREENSHOTS plus an allowlist), which tells the agent when the call will succeed. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over other console_* tools or what to do when the window is not open.

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