Screenshot of the host screen

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a genuine side effect: it nudges the mouse to wake a blanked display, which could disturb cursor state. It omits latency, error behavior when KVM is unavailable, and that the wake nudge may perturb coordinates, so it is good but not complete.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it returns, the wake side effect, and the crop option. Nothing redundant and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 3-parameter, all-optional tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and the non-obvious side effect. The one gap is the return shape (image payload vs. reference) and whether max_side defaults actually apply when a region is supplied.

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 100%, so the schema already documents format defaults, region shape, and the max_side range. The description only reinforces the region/crop use case for small text and adds no syntax or default detail beyond what is structured.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Returns the current host screen") plus the mechanism (IPMI card KVM), which immediately distinguishes it from the action siblings like click, move_mouse, and wait_for_screen_change. An agent knows exactly what it gets without opening the schema.

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 gives a usage hint for the crop path ("to read small text") and explains the blank-display wake behavior, but never states when to choose this over wait_for_screen_change or when a full-screen capture is preferred. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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