Get current screen

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully adds 'without changing emulator state,' indicating a non-mutating operation, and specifies the output format. However, it does not clarify whether the PNG is returned directly in the response or saved to a location, which would be more complete.

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 a single sentence of 15 words, directly front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning (current, emulator, frame, PNG, without changing state), with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is largely complete. It clearly conveys the core function and a key guarantee (no state change). However, it could be more explicit about the return mechanism (e.g., 'returns a PNG image'), which is relevant given the absence of an output 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to explain, and the schema is fully covered by an empty properties object. The description appropriately focuses on the action rather than parameters.

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 captures the current emulator frame as a PNG image, using the specific verb 'Captures' and identifying both the resource ('current emulator frame') and the output format ('PNG image'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like load_rom or reset_emulator, which handle different concerns.

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 usage context (obtaining a screenshot of the current emulator state) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it. No alternative tools are mentioned, so the agent must infer from the tool's name and siblings.

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