get_screenshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description discloses nothing: no indication of what the capture returns, whether it writes files, or how it interacts with the 11 parameters.

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 single sentence is short but that is under-specification rather than conciseness — it spends its only clause pointing at a sibling instead of conveying any actionable information.

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 an 11-parameter tool with a nested region object, three enums, 27% schema coverage, and no output schema, one sentence of alias text is completely inadequate to let an agent invoke it correctly.

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 only 27% across 11 parameters (including an enum-heavy cursor_source, coordinate_space, and a nested region object), and the description adds zero parameter guidance. With low coverage the description must compensate, and it does nothing.

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 only says it is a 'compatibility alias for screenshot' — it never states that it captures a screenshot, what it captures it of, or how it differs from the sibling tool `screenshot`. This is close to restating the name/redirecting rather than defining the tool's actual purpose.

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?

Calling it an 'alias' weakly implies it is redundant with `screenshot`, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or instruction to prefer `screenshot`. An agent has to guess whether this is deprecated, identical, or subtly different.

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