save_output

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses potentially destructive behavior ('Existing files may be overwritten') and filesystem security implications ('filename and folder can affect filesystem paths available to the MCP server'), which is meaningful beyond the schema. It also documents the return value as a confirmation containing format and filename.

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 clear sections: purpose, usage, args, returns, and security. It is front-loaded with the core action, and every section contributes useful information without redundancy or filler.

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 three optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, return value, and security caveats. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to call this tool is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. It explains each parameter, enumerates valid format values with their output types, and clarifies that the filename default changes based on format (screenshot.png, page_source.html, or page.pdf). This adds meaning entirely beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Save the current browser page as a screenshot, HTML file, or PDF.' It clearly distinguishes the tool's artifact-saving purpose from sibling tools like get_content or check_state by emphasizing persistence rather than inspection.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when an automation workflow needs a persistent artifact from the current page, such as a screenshot for debugging, page source for inspection, or a PDF representation.' It provides clear context, though it does not name alternatives or situations when the tool should not be used.

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