abba_window_picture

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false). The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it captures the window even when covered or locked, always the target app and never another, window-mode-only, and is not recorded in fiji_module_script.

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?

Front-loaded with the core meaning and free of filler, but the single stretched sentence with colon and clause chain is slightly hard to parse. Killable clauses: none, though phrasing could be tighter.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description makes clear the return is a rendered picture of the window. Combined with the read-only annotations and fully documented parameter, an agent has enough to invoke it; only the relation to abba_window_view is unstated.

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 coverage is 100% and window_title is already documented (title or its start, default first ABBA window, cross-referenced to fiji_ui_windows_read). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 holds.

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 concrete artifact (a picture/screenshot) and the resource (one Fiji window or dialog), elaborated as 'as it is drawn, what the user sees in it'. It does not name or differentiate itself from the sibling abba_window_view, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

'Window mode only' scopes when the tool applies, and the covered/locked-screen clause hints at reliability. But it never contrasts with abba_window_view or the fiji_ui_* read tools, leaving the agent to guess which to call.

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