Extract capture screenshot

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the temporary file behavior when output_path is absent, the saving behavior when output_path is provided, and the overwrite requirement. This complements the destructiveHint annotation by detailing the specific destructive/overwrite condition.

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 concise and well-structured, with the purpose stated first and behavioral details following in a logical order. Every sentence adds relevant information with no redundancy or 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?

The description covers the core use case and the key behavioral nuances (temporary files, saving, overwrite). It does not explain the include_image parameter, but overall it provides enough context for the agent to select and use the tool effectively, especially given the simple schema and absence of an output schema.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining the effects of output_path and overwrite. However, it does not mention include_image, leaving one of the four parameters undocumented in both schema and description. The coverage is not fully complete.

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 extracts the final-present screenshot from a capture, using specific verb 'extract' and resource 'capture'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_capture or analyze_capture, which focus on analysis rather than image extraction.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need the screenshot from a capture) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no direct comparison to sibling tools or guidance on when not to use it, making the usage context reasonably clear but not fully explicit.

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