sw_screenshot

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the export mechanism (SaveBMP as the only confirmed image export) and the no-Pillow conversion, but omits whether the view is mutated, what the tool returns, or any permissions/state requirements. Adds real value but leaves meaningful gaps.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then use case, then implementation note. Little waste; the implementation detail is arguably relevant given the no-Pillow constraint, though it edges toward verbose.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description should ideally explain the return value (path? confirmation?), which it does not. It does cover output location and format, so the agent can call it correctly, but completeness for a file-producing tool is only partial.

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 coverage is 50%: path and direction carry rich descriptions (direction's ViewId verification is unusually detailed), while width/height have only defaults. The description itself adds nothing to parameters, so the undocumented width/height must be inferred from type and defaults. Baseline 3 for partial coverage.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: capture the active view to PNG, and reinforces it with an analogy to Fusion's 'screenshot' queryType. An agent can immediately tell this is a screen-capture tool, though it never explicitly contrasts against any sibling (e.g., sw_export_step for file export).

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?

Provides an implied use case ('ver lo que se ha construido sin que el usuario este delante de la pantalla'), which tells the agent when remote inspection is wanted. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., document must be open/connected), and no named alternative.

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