take_screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (base64-encoded PNG) but omits other behavioral traits such as whether saving via save_path is alternative to returning, whether it requires an existing session, or potential side effects. The optional save_path introduces ambiguity about the tool's 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action. No fluff or redundancy. Every word contributes.

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 is simple, and the description covers the core function and return type. However, the behavior of save_path is ambiguous (does it save, return, or both?), and no context about session requirements or whether the screenshot is of the entire screen or viewport is given. This leaves gaps for a complete understanding.

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% (save_path is documented). The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter or how it interacts with the return value. Baseline of 3 applies due to full schema coverage, and no misleading or confusing param info is present.

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 states the tool's action ('Capture a screenshot') and the target ('current screen state'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_ui_source and verify_screen_loaded by specifying a visual capture and its return format.

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?

No usage context is provided. There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_ui_source, nor any mention of prerequisites (e.g., an active session). The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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