kde_screenshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the result is an MCP image (not a JSON structure or file path), which is real value. However, it says nothing about what 'output' does to disk, whether overwrite silently replaces a file, or what happens on session errors.

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 well-formed sentence with the action and return type front-loaded, and no padding. It is efficient, though brevity here borders on leaving useful parameter context out.

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 capture tool with no output schema, the definition conveys the action and return medium but omits the semantics of two parameters and any failure behavior. The annotations carry the read-only safety burden, so the remaining gaps are moderate rather than fatal.

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 coverage is only 33%; the required 'session' parameter is fully described in the schema, but 'output' and 'overwrite' are undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description does not compensate for that gap at all, leaving two of three parameters semantically opaque.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Capture') with a specific resource ('the selected desktop') and adds the return shape ('PNG as an MCP image result'). It is clear on its own but never contrasts itself with the nearby kde_desktop_observe tool, which an agent could reasonably confuse it with.

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?

'selected desktop' hints that a target must be chosen but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite explanation, and no pointer to the alternative observation tool. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the session parameter.

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