Render screenshots

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the operation is fire-and-forget ('Returns at once') and requires polling, and the headed app must be open. It also discloses a partial-failure mode ('A heading too long to fit is reported in the app and stops that render'), which is important for a non-idempotent, open-world render job. Remaining gaps are modest (effect on existing/queued renders, permission requirements).

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?

Three sentences, no filler, and the async contract is front-loaded before the caveat about heading overflow. Every clause carries actionable information for the agent.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is rendered, that it returns immediately, how to track completion via get_screenshots, and a known failure condition. It could say slightly more about what the immediate return contains and whether partially rendered sets are rolled back.

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% and the single projectId parameter is fully documented in the schema (including its source, get_overview). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter itself, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('draw every screenshot still missing for the current design') and scopes it precisely with '(bundled fonts, every locale and device)'. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like screenshots_export, screenshots_upload, and screenshots_edit_slide, since it is a batch renderer for missing targets only.

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?

Gives clear operational context: it runs asynchronously and the caller must 'poll get_screenshots until every target is done', explicitly naming the follow-up tool. It also implicitly constrains use to previously-defined designs (existing headings/fonts/locale setup) by saying 'still missing'. It does not state when NOT to use it or mention prerequisites such as the ASOMaster window being open as a hard requirement.

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