code_from_screenshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It only says 'extract code' and gives no details about what the tool returns, whether the file is modified, limitations, or behavior on non-code images.

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 exceptionally concise and front-loaded, with every word contributing to the meaning. The bilingual phrasing is efficient and does not add unnecessary length.

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?

The tool has no output schema or annotations, yet the description does not explain what the output looks like or how it handles edge cases. Given the sibling 'extract_text', more context about usage boundaries and return format is needed to fully guide an agent.

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 schema covers the single parameter with a clear description, and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly identifies the verb (extract), resource (screenshot file), and what is produced (code). This distinguishes it from generic image analysis tools and even from 'extract_text', since the focus is specifically on code extraction.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'extract_text' or 'analyze_image'. The description only implies its use for screenshots containing code, but offers no exclusions or alternatives.

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