page_screenshot

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

Annotations are all false, so no contradiction. The description adds that the tool can output to file or base64, but does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., file overwriting, error handling) or the exact return value when saving to file. It repeats some parameter details already in the schema.

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 very concise with three short sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage guidelines. No redundant words or sentences.

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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, nested object) and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality well. However, it lacks details about the return value when saving to disk (e.g., file path?) and error scenarios. This is a minor gap for completeness.

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 the description adds limited extra meaning. It clarifies the dual output mode via the 'path' parameter (save vs. base64) and mentions defaults (format PNG, quality 80), but these are already in the schema. The nested 'clip' object is noted but not explained beyond the 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 clearly states the tool saves a page screenshot to file or returns as base64, and lists key features like full-page capture, region clipping, and multiple image formats. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'computer(action:"screenshot")' by specifying when not to use.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections provide direct guidance, including a specific alternative (computer action) for inline viewport screenshots. This helps the agent select correctly.

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