browser_desktop_screenshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the underlying mechanism ('Uses org.gnome.Shell.Screenshot') and the CDP-independence, which implies a GNOME/display requirement, but says nothing about permissions, return format, or failure modes on non-GNOME hosts.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the resilience condition and implementation detail. No filler.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what it captures, when to prefer it, and its backing API. It omits the return shape (image payload vs. file path) and environment prerequisites, which matter more here since there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there are no parameter semantics to add. The description correctly implies it is parameterless.

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 specific verb and resource ('Screenshot the GNOME desktop'), clarifies the capture surface ('Brave window as the user sees it'), and implicitly distinguishes itself from the CDP-based sibling browser_screenshot by noting it works 'even if CDP is down'. An agent can tell this apart from browser_screenshot without opening either 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?

Gives a clear condition for use ('even if CDP is down'), which routes the agent here when the CDP path is unavailable. It stops short of explicitly naming browser_screenshot as the alternative or stating when this tool should NOT be used.

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