onda_window_screenshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explains the return modes (dataUrl vs tempfile), the return object shape (dataUrl|path, width, height, windowId, capturedAt), and defaults (focused window, PNG, dataUrl=true). It omits error conditions or side effects, but for a read-only capture operation these are minor gaps.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with all-optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential context: return shape, defaults, and use cases. It doesn't address error handling or capture timing, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the 4 parameters, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds value by summarizing defaults and providing practical guidance for when to set dataUrl=false ('useful for large captures'), which assists parameter selection beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Capture') and resource ('Onda main window'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It also states the intent 'for visual debugging' and distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, none of which capture screenshots.

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 description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this when you (the agent) need to SEE what the user sees' and lists concrete scenarios (verifying layout, confirming rendering, investigating UI glitches). Since no sibling tool offers screenshots, no alternative or exclusion is needed.

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