screenshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses macOS window focusing, the no-screen-access nature of render mode, and camera movement before capture. It does not mention output format, permissions, or error behavior, but the disclosed traits are significant.

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?

Four sentences pack a lot of mode, parameter, and platform detail without wasted words. The information is front-loaded and scannable, though a bulleted structure could improve readability.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 8 parameters, the description covers the core modes and key parameters but omits the meaning of four parameters and the return format. This is a meaningful gap for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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 0%, and the description explains mode, title, target, and the camera object's shape (position, lookAt, fov, release). However, width, method, exposure, and includeUi are left completely unexplained, so agents must guess at their meaning.

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 opens with 'See what Studio shows' and then details two capture modes—window and render—with distinct behaviors. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose as capturing Studio visuals and differentiates it from sibling tools like get_logs or studio_status, which are unrelated.

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 when to use window mode by default, when to pass title, and when render mode is preferable ('works without screen access'). It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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