screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals that the response contains the saved path and never base64, and that StreamableHTTP mode includes a download URL with a one-hour default TTL. It also discloses the intended use boundary. This is rich behavioral context beyond the name and schema.

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 three concise paragraphs: what it does, what the response looks like, and when not to use it. It is front-loaded with the primary action and every sentence contributes meaningful guidance.

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 tool with no annotations and a minimal schema, the description covers the core behavior, response format, expiry, and usage boundaries. However, the four optional parameters are left undocumented, so an agent cannot confidently customize path, display, or session_id. Still, invoking with defaults is well-supported.

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?

The input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage in the schema, yet the description does not explain any of them (path, window, display, session_id). The only hint, 'Defaults to the active visible 1C window,' obliquely relates to the window parameter but does not clarify its values or the other parameters. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 uses the specific verb 'Capture' with the resource 'screenshot from the MCP host' and clarifies the default target (active visible 1C window). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools for data extraction by explicitly limiting its use to evidence/diagnostics, so an agent knows exactly what it does.

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 explicitly states when to use screenshots (user evidence, UI diagnostics) and when not to (analyzing report/table/tabular/list data), and names specific alternative tools. This is explicit when/when-not guidance with alternatives.

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