browser_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 disclose meaningful traits: it returns the image plus DPR/viewport metadata, quality only applies to jpeg, and the option set is enumerable. It omits the default capture mode (viewport vs full page) and any prerequisite that a page must already be loaded.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then densely packing options and return value. No filler; every clause adds 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 4-param tool with a nested object, no output schema and no annotations, the description covers both the option surface and the return payload. It lacks only prerequisites (browser launched/navigated) and default behavior to be 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description compensates well: it explains fullPage, format values png|jpeg, quality range 1-100 restricted to jpeg, and the clip object's {x,y,width,height} shape. The only gap is that defaults (e.g. fullPage=false, default format) are unstated.

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 (Screenshot) and resource (the page), which implicitly distinguishes it from the mac_screenshot and phone_screenshot siblings. It doesn't explicitly name or route against those alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of the mac_screenshot/phone_screenshot alternatives an agent must choose between. Usage is only inferable from the word 'page'.

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