mcpretentious-screenshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It explains the tool's token optimization (85-98% reduction), how it returns only requested data layers, and supports region-specific captures. It does not mention potential side effects or required permissions, but given the tool appears to be a read operation, this is acceptable.

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 relatively concise at two sentences, front-loading the core action in the first sentence. It uses bullet-like structure in the second sentence (e.g., 'Supports viewport limiting...'). It could be slightly more structured, but it is not verbose.

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 5 parameters including a nested object, and no output schema, the description should clarify the return format. It states 'returns only the data layers you need,' but doesn't specify the structure or how errors are handled. The description covers main use cases but lacks complete documentation for complex scenarios.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by contextualizing parameters: it explains that the layered format reduces tokens, viewport limiting and aroundCursor help reduce tokens, and compact skips empty lines. This clarifies the purpose beyond the schema descriptions.

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 takes a token-optimized screenshot of the terminal screen using a layered format. It specifies the action ('takes'), the resource ('terminal screen'), and the key benefit ('reduces token usage by 85-98%'). This distinctively separates it from sibling tools like mcpretentious-read or mcpretentious-type, which handle different terminal interactions.

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 that the tool is 'essential for inspecting TUI applications without hitting token limits,' providing clear context for use. It also explains when to use features like viewport limiting or aroundCursor. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, which would improve guidance.

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