Capture Screenshot

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful behavior context like 'live webpage', 'cookie hiding', and 'custom JS injection' without contradicting annotations. It does not detail all edge cases, but the annotations cover the core safety profile.

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 a single, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the primary action and then lists supported features. Every word adds value, with no redundant filler.

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?

The description gives a broad overview of tool capabilities and pairs with a rich input schema, but it does not explain ambiguous parameters or output retrieval behavior. For a 12-parameter tool with no output schema, this is adequate for selection but not fully sufficient for correct invocation without additional inference.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description's list of capabilities (e.g., 'device-sized renders', 'cookie hiding', 'HTML capture') indirectly maps to parameters like width/height, hideCookie, and format. However, many parameters (hide, delay, convert, country, language, fullSize) remain ambiguous and uncompensated.

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 captures a live webpage and lists specific use cases (screenshots, PDFs, HTML capture, etc.). It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools 'analyze' and 'compare', but the capture focus is apparent.

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 provides explicit use-case guidance with 'Use this for...' and enumerates supported output types and features. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the context is clear for selecting this tool for capture tasks.

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