capture_screenshot

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it declares 'Side effects: none (read-only)', prerequisites (active Chrome tab), and return type (base64 encoded image). This is comprehensive for a read-only screenshot tool.

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?

Description is concise and well-structured, with front-loaded action and result. It uses only 4 sentences without any redundant information, making it easy to scan.

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?

With 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, side effects, prerequisites, return type, use cases, and alternatives. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides (format, quality, full_page with constraints and defaults). No extra context for parameter usage.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'captures' and clearly states the resource: 'visual representation of the current page viewport or entire page'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning alternatives like 'inspect_dom' and 'get_performance_metrics'.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'to visually verify UI state, layout, or rendering'. Also provides alternatives for other purposes, giving clear guidance on when not to use this tool.

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