spider_screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions return type and support for full-page and viewports, but omits details on error handling, performance, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that convey the essential purpose and key features. No wasted words.

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 tool has 19 parameters and is complex (nested objects, many options), the description is too minimal. It does not mention most configuration options (e.g., ads blocking, cookies, timeouts, CDP params, automation) nor the default behavior of these parameters. An overview of available features would improve 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context about full-page capture (tying to full_page parameter) and custom viewports (viewport parameter), but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 screenshot of a web page and mentions default return format (base64 PNG) and capabilities (full-page, custom viewports). However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling spider_browser_screenshot, which likely serves a similar purpose.

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 implies the tool is used when a screenshot is needed, but it provides no guidance on when not to use it or what alternatives exist (e.g., spider_browser_screenshot for interactive browser context). It lacks explicit usage context.

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