screenshot

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

Description discloses consent overlay hiding, robots.txt compliance, free trial key creation, and return data format. With no annotations provided, this is thorough, though it omits error handling and authentication requirements beyond the optional api_key.

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 efficiently structured: opens with the core purpose and result, then lists parameter details. Every sentence adds value, no 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (base64 image, final URL, pixel size) and the free trial key. All parameters are covered, and behavioral details are included. No significant gaps.

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?

Each of the 7 parameters is explicitly explained in the description, including default values and optional behavior. The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates, adding meaning to url, api_key, full_page, width, height, format, and wait_for_selector.

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?

Description clearly states the tool captures a screenshot of a web page in a real browser and returns base64 image data, final URL, and pixel size. It is distinct from sibling tools like read_page and pdf.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or comparison to alternatives is given. Usage is implied (visual capture), but the description does not guide the agent away from using this tool when text extraction (read_page) or PDF generation (pdf) is more appropriate.

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