document_screenshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that 'full' uses 'native screen capture' and that scene mode produces a 'clean rendered frame.' However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether it pauses rendering, or any side effects (e.g., whether it modifies the document). The description is not misleading but lacks depth on behavioral traits.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence earns its place. It wastes no words and clearly conveys the main purpose and the key mode distinction.

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 with four optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the critical mode distinction and the presence of width/height constraints is in the schema. There is no need to explain return values in detail. It is reasonably complete for a screenshot tool.

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 100% as all four parameters have descriptions. The description adds context for the 'mode' parameter (default and difference between values), but the schema already covers the semantics of frame, width, and height. The description's value over schema is marginal but not absent.

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 function: 'Render the MOHO scene or capture the full application window and return as an image.' It uses specific verbs (render/capture) and identifies the resource (MOHO scene/application window). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like animation or input tools.

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 provides explicit guidance on mode selection: 'Use mode "scene" (default) for a clean rendered frame, or "full" for the entire MOHO UI including timeline, layers panel, etc.' This tells the agent exactly when to use each mode. It does not name alternative tools, but no sibling serves a similar purpose, so this is adequate context.

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