browser_full_page_screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the output format (JPEG) and existence of caps, but omits critical behavioral details: whether scrolling occurs automatically, how dynamic content is handled, error states (e.g., tab not shared), or side effects. The phrase 'explicitly shared tab' is vague and does not clarify the sharing mechanism or prerequisites.

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 a single 13-word sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action verb and uses minimal words to convey the core function and constraints. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks information about prerequisites (how to share a tab), the meaning of dimension/byte caps, return format details, and potential failure modes. Sibling tool names hint at full-page capture, but integration context is insufficient for reliable use.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains collaboration_id implicitly as the identifier for the 'explicitly shared tab', which adds meaning beyond the pattern. However, the quality parameter is completely unaddressed. The description partially covers one of two parameters, earning a middle score.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Capture') and resource ('full-page JPEG from an explicitly shared tab'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like browser_screenshot (viewport) and browser_region_screenshot (region) by specifying 'full-page'. The constraints 'dimension- and byte-capped' further clarify the tool's scope.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention of 'explicitly shared tab' hints at a prerequisite but does not explain it. There is no indication of when not to use it, what sibling tools are better suited for other scenarios, or any usage context beyond the core action.

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