get_screenshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it discloses the most important behavioral trait — that this call consumes a lot of context — which is exactly what an agent needs to avoid over-calling it. It stops short of describing the returned image (resolution, format, whether it reflects the current frame or a cached one) or confirming it is a side-effect-free read.

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 short sentences: the first says what it returns, the second delivers the cost warning and the routing advice. Every clause earns its place and the highest-value information (cost) is prominent.

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 parameterless read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, cost, and the alternative sufficiently to call it correctly. What is missing is a word on the shape of the result (an image payload, likely large, with no accompanying text), which would fully close the loop.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing in the input schema that needs compensating for. The description correctly implies no arguments are required.

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 concrete resource and output form ('Current screen as an image') and explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling read_game_state, which returns plain facts. An agent knows exactly what this returns versus the textual state reader.

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?

Names the preferred alternative and the condition that selects it ('when RAM state is available, prefer read_game_state'). It lacks an explicit positive statement of when this tool is the right choice (e.g., when visual layout or graphics matter), so guidance is strong but one-sided.

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