Captura de pantalla

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description is not the sole carrier of the safety profile. It usefully adds that a file is written to the teacher's local machine (a side effect the annotations do not capture) and that a path is returned, but it says nothing about overwrite behavior, filename collisions, or the path format. There is a mild tension between 'Guarda... en el ordenador' (a disk write) and readOnlyHint=true, though this reads as read-only with respect to the target web app rather than a true contradiction.

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, zero filler, and the core action plus the returned path are front-loaded before the usage hint. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 a one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema and existing annotations, the description covers the essential: what is captured, where it is stored, and that a path comes back. Only the details of the returned path format and file-overwrite semantics are missing, which are minor here.

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?

There is a single optional parameter, 'label', and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains it as a short text for the filename. The description never mentions the label, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it saves a screenshot of the current page to the teacher's computer and returns the path. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from siblings like educa_dump_html or educa_inspect_page, but it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

'Útil para dejar constancia antes y después de guardar' gives a recommended usage context tied to the save workflow, which is more than nothing. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no sibling alternative (e.g. dump_html for text content) is named, so the agent must infer the routing.

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