browser_screenshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention potential file writing side effects, return value, or interaction with browser session state. The description only restates the core action without addressing whether it is read-only, destructive, or requires specific conditions.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words, directly stating the tool's purpose. While it could be more informative, its brevity is acceptable for a simple tool, though it omits important nuances.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, placing a burden on the description to explain operational behavior. It omits critical details such as file format, return value, how selector and fullPage interact, and whether a session is required. The schema covers parameter syntax but not usage context, leaving the description incomplete for safe invocation.

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 100%, with all four parameters (path, fullPage, selector, sessionId) clearly documented. The description does not add any semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline for fully covered parameters.

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 action ('Take a screenshot') and the target ('page or an element'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the only screenshot-specific browser tool, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_pdf or other capture methods. No context is given for appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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