screenshot_url

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

The description discloses headless mode and Chromium fallback, but no annotations are provided. It lacks details on error handling, side effects, or rate limits. The behavioral coverage is partial.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the key action. It is concise and without filler, but could benefit from better structure for complex parameters.

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 tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter guidance, output format, and error behavior, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 6 parameters (url, waitMs, fullPage, etc.). The agent gains no additional insight into parameter meaning or usage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: opening a URL in Edge headless (with Chromium fallback) and returning a screenshot. The verb 'Abre' (opens) and resource 'URL' are specific, and the tool is distinct from sibling file/process tools.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but siblings are unrelated (file/process tools), so usage is implied. No when-not or alternative tools are mentioned.

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