take_screenshot

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing how the tool behaves (e.g., whether it requires a booted simulator, overwrites existing files, or fails if the simulator is not running). The schema hints at PNG format, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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, concise sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words or repetition. It is appropriately short for a simple tool with only two parameters.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose but omits important context such as simulator state requirements. The sibling tools like boot_simulator and list_booted_simulators hint at typical workflows, but the description itself does not complete the context for a new agent. It is minimally viable but with a clear gap in prerequisite awareness.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (udid and outputPath), covering 100% of parameters. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Take a screenshot') and the target resource ('a simulator'). It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools which handle simulator management, app installation, or file operations. No other tool appears to offer screenshot capability.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites (e.g., simulator must be booted), or post-conditions. It does not mention alternatives or any conditions where it should not be used. The usage context is entirely implied.

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