screenstudio_contact_sheet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: the precondition that the editor window must be on screen, the 24-tile cap, and the tile label format. It stops short of describing the returned artifact itself.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and packed with useful specifics, with no filler sentences. It is dense and long-ish, but each clause (moments captured, tile format, jobIds mode, sibling routing, precondition) earns its place.

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 six-parameter, zero-required, no-output-schema capture tool, the description covers the two modes and the precondition an agent must satisfy. The gap is the display/appearance parameters (style, width, columns) and projectPath, which an agent would have to guess at.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it only partly does: playbackMs (with its 24-item cap) and jobIds (expanding to one row per export at opening/midpoint/ending) are explained. style, width, columns and projectPath get no mention at all, leaving half the surface undocumented in both places.

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 verb and resource — reviewing a whole edit as a labelled grid of the open editor's preview — and enumerates exactly which moments get captured. An agent can distinguish it from editor_frame without opening either 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 names the alternative explicitly ('Use it before editor_frame, which is for a close look at one moment') and gives the selection condition (broad review vs. single-moment close look). It also covers both operating modes: editor capture vs. the jobIds path for finished exports.

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