analyze_screen

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool sends frames to a vision provider and returns an answer, but does not mention whether it is read-only, if it has side effects, or if it requires prior setup (e.g., capturing frames). The behavior is mostly clear but lacks specifics on state modification.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundancy. Every word provides value.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, description should cover more context. It lacks details on prerequisite conditions (e.g., vision provider configured, frames captured), return format, error handling, and potential costs. Leaves gaps for an AI agent to infer.

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 description must compensate. It explains lookback_frames as controlling number of frames (default 3) and query as the user's question. This adds meaning over schema titles, but query could be more specific (e.g., format, constraints). Adequate but not excellent.

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?

Description clearly states the tool sends recent frames to a vision provider with the user's question and returns the answer. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like capture_now (capturing frames) and list_windows (listing windows).

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?

Description implies usage for analyzing screen content via a vision provider, and mentions the lookback_frames parameter for controlling frame count. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like capture_now (which captures without analysis) or when not to use it.

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