Screenshot designer state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing the returned state and explaining that checks such as missing images, heading limits, stale translations, and low contrast block export and upload.

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 front-loaded with the resource and its components, then closes with actionable routing to sibling tools and the app. It is dense but efficient; the parenthetical checks are informative rather than redundant.

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 lack of an output schema, the description does a good job enumerating what the tool returns and what the checks mean. It does not need to explain return formatting further, and the single required parameter is fully documented in the schema.

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?

There is only one parameter, projectId, and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining that it comes from get_overview. The description does not add further meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 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 states a specific resource and scope: the project's screenshot design, including slides, theme, headings, render status, and checks. It also distinguishes this read tool from the editing siblings screenshots_write_headings and screenshots_translate, so an agent can identify its role without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly routes heading edits to screenshots_write_headings / screenshots_translate and says images, rendering, export, and upload happen in the app. That gives clear usage context and alternatives, though it does not explicitly say when to call this tool versus get_overview or other project-state tools.

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