sleeper_screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose what happens to the captured image (returned inline, written to disk, path returned), whether the capture is read-only and side-effect free, or any failure modes on a missing/backgrounded tab.

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?

A single short clause, front-loaded with the alias relationship and the output type. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than true economy.

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?

A tool with two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema needs the description to explain the return artifact and where it goes; it does not. An agent cannot tell whether it receives image bytes, a file path, or a URL.

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 only 50%: the 'profile' parameter is documented in the schema, but the 'tab' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a concrete output (viewport PNG screenshot) and frames the tool as an alias for the sibling sleeper_shot. That is enough to distinguish it from sleeper_snapshot (likely full-page) without opening either schema, though the reliance on 'Alias for shot' means the agent must already know the sibling naming scheme.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. Saying it is an alias for sleeper_shot implicitly raises the question of which to call, but the description never resolves it, nor does it mention any prerequisite such as a connected browser.

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