list_screenshots_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful behavior beyond the schema: results may be OCR-backed stubs, and image_available=false means the JPEG expired while an OCR preview may survive. It says nothing about permissions, pagination, ordering, or what the default limit=30 implies.

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?

Two tight sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the data-quality caveat second. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence partly restates return-value semantics that the output schema presumably already encodes.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in the description, yet the image_available note duplicates that role. The real gap is parameters: 0% schema coverage with no start/end format or limit behavior described, and no annotations to lean on. Adequate for a simple list tool, but incomplete for correct invocation.

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% and the description only partially compensates: 'in a time window' implies start/end are time bounds but gives no format (ISO timestamp, epoch, date?). The limit parameter and its default of 30 are never mentioned. Two of three parameters gain meaning, one gains none, and the format ambiguity remains.

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 ('List screenshots') with an explicit scope modifier ('in a time window'), and the parenthetical '(or OCR-backed stubs)' clarifies what the results actually are. It is clearly distinct from the singular get_screenshot_tool, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as get_screenshot_tool or search_events_tool. The time-window phrasing hints at the use case but the agent must infer everything else.

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