nanokvm_screenshot

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: default resizing from 4K to 1080p, JPEG output format, and parameter behaviors such as 'use 0 for no limit.' It does not mention potential side effects or permissions, but for a read-only screenshot tool, this is adequate.

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 well-structured with a concise purpose statement, followed by clear parameter details and a return-value description. Every sentence adds value, and the section headers (Args, Returns) facilitate quick comprehension.

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 tool is simple, and the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how it behaves by default, what each parameter controls, and what the output is. Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains the JPEG return value.

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?

Despite the input schema having 0% description coverage, the description's Args section thoroughly explains each parameter, including defaults, valid ranges (quality 1-100), and special values (0 for no limit). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 begins with a specific action and resource: "Capture a screenshot from the target machine's display." This clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings, none of which capture screenshots.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool or compare it to alternatives. However, the tool's unique functionality among siblings implies its use case, but the context is not fully spelled out.

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