screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden alone; it does disclose the runtime dependency on playwright and that the result is an image file path, which are genuinely useful. It omits whether a file is written to disk, where, whether it overwrites, and any permission or failure behavior — material gaps for a capture tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentences, no filler. The core action is front-loaded, with the use case and prerequisite following compactly.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers the action, the return value, and the environment prerequisite. The only material hole is the meaning of the required 'file' argument and any side effects on disk.

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 50%: 'path' is documented in the schema, and the description reinforces its scope ('whole board' vs. element inside it). The required 'file' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, so the agent must guess whether it is the output destination or an input file.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource ('Take a PNG screenshot of a board, or of an element inside it') and states the output ('return the image file path'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from a plausible sibling such as save_snapshot, which could overlap in intent.

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?

It names a specific use case — 'check how a change looks' — and a hard prerequisite ('requires playwright'), which is real selection guidance. It stops short of saying when not to use it or pointing at the alternative (save_snapshot) for capture-style workflows.

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