get_chart_screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full safety-and-behavior burden. It discloses what gets captured (whole window including watchlist, or one chart at full resolution) but stays silent on important traits: it targets the 'TradingView desktop app', implying the app must be running/visible, yet that precondition is unstated; it also doesn't say whether the capture has side effects or how the image is returned.

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 sentences and roughly 40 words carry action, purpose, default behavior, and the parameter exception. It is front-loaded with the core action and every clause earns its place; no filler or unnecessary schema repetition.

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 simple two-optional-parameter tool, parameter knowledge is complete via the schema. But with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits what the caller receives (image binary, base64, or URL) and any preconditions on the desktop app being open — both matters an agent needs to handle the result and failure modes correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema: it frames chart_index as for 'a multi-chart layout' and promises 'full resolution' capture, which the schema description does not state. The format parameter's trade-off (jpeg smaller vs png sharper) is already fully covered in 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 the specific action ('Capture a screenshot of the TradingView desktop app') with a clear purpose ('for visual analysis'). The scope detail (whole window vs single chart) further disambiguates it from siblings like get_chart_context, get_mtf_overview, and get_execution_snapshot, which return data rather than images.

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 implies when to use it (whenever a visual capture is needed) and offers clear parameter-level guidance (use chart_index for a single chart of a multi-chart layout; the index comes from get_chart_context). However, it never names alternatives or states when-not-to-use, leaving tool-selection distinctions to inference from the sibling list.

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