maestro_screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool returns a screenshot image and requires a running simulator, which implies non-destructive behavior. It could mention that it doesn't modify state, but the description is sufficient for a simple read-only operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds value. No extraneous information.

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 simple screenshot tool with no output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the purpose, prerequisites, and return type. It could detail supported image formats, but that is not critical.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema for the parameters. It does not explain the purpose of outputDir or filename beyond their defaults.

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 action ('Take a screenshot'), the target resource ('currently running app on iOS Simulator or Android Emulator'), and the tool (Maestro). It distinguishes from sibling tools like maestro_run_flow and maestro_status by specifying the exact output.

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 lists prerequisites ('Requires Maestro CLI and a running simulator/emulator'), which helps agents know when it's usable. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like maestro_store_screenshot or generate_screenshot.

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