screenstudio_desktop_screenshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about scaling behavior, but does not disclose return format (image bytes vs URL), latency, or failure modes for an invalid windowId, leaving behavioral gaps beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core action, which is good. However, the second sentence is garbled/truncated ('so large windows stay readable and small.'), costing clarity for the space it consumes.

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 2-parameter capture tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the essential action and the width behavior are conveyed. But windowId sourcing, return type, and relationship to desktop_inspect/action siblings are unaddressed, leaving it only minimally complete.

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 parameter meaning. It partially compensates by explaining the width parameter (points-wide scaling, default 1280), but the required windowId is undocumented — an agent is not told how to obtain a valid window id.

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+resource: 'Screenshot the target native window.' It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from desktop siblings like screenstudio_desktop_inspect or desktop_action, which may also return visual/window state.

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?

'before deciding where to act' implies a position in a capture-then-act workflow, giving implied usage context. However, it names no alternatives (e.g., inspect vs screenshot vs action) and states no explicit when-not condition, so selection guidance is only suggestive.

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