screenshot

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations: action links (delete, save) are refused because merely opening them in CvLAC performs the action, and the capture reflects the page 'as it is now' (live reload, not cached). It doesn't describe the returned artifact (image vs. path) or any rate/latency concerns.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the core action and its default are front-loaded, and the constraint clause follows logically. Every clause carries information.

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?

For a single optional-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers action, default resolution, and the key side-effect safeguard. The only gap is what the capture actually returns, which is largely self-evident for a screenshot tool but not stated.

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 100%, so the url parameter and its default are already documented. The description reinforces the default ('or else the last list, record or form page a tool visited') and clarifies which page types qualify, but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Capture a CvLAC page') plus intent ('for debugging'), so an agent knows this renders a page rather than reading its content. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like read_cvlac or inspect_form, but the differentiated 'screenshot' verb is inferable.

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 explains the default behavior (falls back to the last list/record/form page a tool visited), which is useful invocation context, but it never states when to choose this over read_cvlac, read_cvlac_detail, or inspect_form. Usage is implied rather than stated with alternatives.

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