take_screenshot

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

The description only states the core action and target, adding little beyond the annotations. It does not disclose behavior such as whether the screenshot is attached to the response or saved to a file when filePath is provided, nor does it mention fullPage incompatibilities. These are left to the schema, not the description.

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 with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It is not structured with additional details, but for a simple tool this brevity is appropriate and front-loads the primary purpose.

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?

The schema is rich and describes all six parameters clearly, which compensates for the minimal description. However, there is no mention of what the tool returns or how screenshots are delivered when filePath is not used, and no guidance on element vs page screenshot distinctions. This leaves some gaps, but the schema covers most operational details.

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 thoroughly documents each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters; it merely mentions 'page or element,' which is already reflected in the pageId and uid parameter descriptions. A baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic load.

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 identifies the operation ('Take a screenshot') and the target ('the page or element'), which is specific and understandable. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like take_snapshot or take_heapsnapshot, so an agent might not know which capture tool to select without more context.

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 versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. There is no reference to performance traces, snapshots, or other capture mechanisms, so the agent is left without context for choosing this specific tool.

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