take_screenshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses headless rendering via --script and the limitation about autoload dependencies. It does not detail error behavior, return value, or file overwrite semantics, but for a screenshot tool the core behavior and constraints are well conveyed.

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 primary action and a practical usage note. No redundant content or filler.

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 simple screenshot tool, the description conveys purpose, usage context, and a sibling alternative. It lacks explicit return/error details, but the output (PNG) is implied. Given no annotations or output schema, this is reasonably complete.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no additional parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides; it only mentions 'capture a PNG' which maps to outputPath but doesn't elaborate.

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 explicitly states it renders a scene headlessly and captures a PNG, clearly distinguishing from test_take_screenshot by noting it's for standalone scenes without autoload deps. The purpose is specific and the resource (scene) is identified.

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?

Explicitly says 'Best for standalone scenes without autoload deps' and 'For real game scenes, prefer test_take_screenshot', providing clear when-to-use and a named alternative. This fully addresses usage context.

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