gowitness_screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job by disclosing external dependencies ('Requires Chrome/Chromium'), saving behavior ('Screenshots are saved locally to output_dir'), and the allowed_hosts constraint. It does not discuss rate limits or potential side effects, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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-organized with clear sections (Args, Returns, Note) and front-loads the primary purpose in the first sentence. Each sentence adds value, such as the return summary and the Chrome/Chromium requirement, without excessive fluff.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters and a moderate complexity, the description covers parameters, return values, prerequisites, and operational constraints. Even though an output schema exists, it still summarizes the return format, and the notes provide essential environmental context, making it fully self-sufficient.

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?

The input schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description's Args section is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains 'target' as URL, file, or CIDR based on mode; defines 'mode' options; clarifies 'output_dir' default; and notes 'timeout' as an override. This fully compensates for the lack of schema 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 clearly states the tool 'Capture web screenshots for visual documentation using Gowitness', specifying both the action and the resource. It also mentions specific use cases (documenting web interfaces, login pages, web-based findings), distinguishing it from other scanning tools.

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 clear context for when to use it ('Useful for documenting web interfaces, login pages, and web-based findings in penetration test reports') and includes a prerequisite note about allowed_hosts. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full guidance.

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