game_screenshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the base64 PNG return format and implies a read-only capture behavior, but it does not specify whether the screenshot saves to disk, captures the whole window or viewport, or what happens if no game is running.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. The core action is placed first, and the return format is parenthetically included without adding unnecessary length.

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 no-parameter, low-complexity tool, the description is largely sufficient: it tells the agent what to do and what output to expect. The main missing context is prerequisites and exact capture scope, but these do not prevent basic correct invocation.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4. The description adds no parameter details but also has none to document; no compensation is needed.

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 identifies the action ('Screenshot'), the target ('the running game'), and the output format ('returns base64 PNG'). This is specific enough to distinguish it from the large list of game_* sibling tools, none of which capture a full-screen image.

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 makes the intended use clear: capture the currently running game as an image. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but given the tool has no parameters and a unique purpose among siblings, this is a minor gap.

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