save_last_screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: output is written under SAP_OUTPUT_ROOT and existing files are not overwritten. However, it is ambiguous about the collision case — does it error, append a suffix, or refuse? — and says nothing about permissions or return behavior.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the destination and the no-overwrite rule front-loaded; no filler. It is tight, though the brevity contributes to the unresolved ambiguities noted elsewhere.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action and one behavioral constraint but leaves key operational questions unanswered: the resulting file path/return value, collision behavior, and when the tool is appropriate. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% and the description adds no meaning for the sole 'filename' parameter — no extension handling, path semantics, or how the name interacts with the no-overwrite rule (e.g., whether SAP_OUTPUT_ROOT is prepended). The parameter is only self-explanatory by convention.

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 (Save) and resource (the last requested screenshot) plus the destination root, SAP_OUTPUT_ROOT, and the no-overwrite constraint. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like sap_get_screen or sap_press, though it never names an alternative to sharpen the distinction.

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 phrase 'last requested screenshot' hints at a prerequisite (a prior screenshot request) but the description never states when to use this tool versus sap_get_screen or what happens if no screenshot has been requested. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are given.

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