take_screenshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function and does not mention critical behaviors such as JavaScript execution, retry logic, proxy usage, cookie handling, or return formats. The schema hints at these features, but the description itself adds no transparency.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded and free of fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple purpose, though given the tool's complexity, a bit more detail would be helpful. Still, as far as conciseness, it scores well.

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?

The tool is highly complex with 24 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The one-sentence description is grossly inadequate; it does not explain return values, usage scenarios, error conditions, or how the tool behaves. This is a significant completeness gap for such a feature-rich tool.

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 100% for all 24 parameters, so the description is not required to explain parameters. Since the schema already documents each parameter with clear descriptions, the description adds no additional semantic value, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Capture webpage screenshots' clearly states the action (capture) and resource (webpage screenshots), and it distinguishes itself from sibling scraping tools like scrape and scrape_with_js by focusing on visual capture. However, it lacks specificity about screenshot variants (full-page, element, etc.), which are only in the 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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as scrape_with_js or scrape. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites. Users are left to infer from the name and schema that it is for screenshots, but the description does not explicitly clarify when it should be preferred.

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