Screenshot-Verification anzeigen

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by noting it returns the *last* screenshot (latest only) and that the response includes the image plus status, which matters given no output schema exists.

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 front-loaded sentences with the action first and the diagnostic rationale second. The parenthetical symptom list is slightly verbose but earns its place by helping the agent recognize the failure scenarios the image depicts.

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 read-only, two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, scope (latest image) and return content. The main remaining gap is disambiguation from get-screenshot-failures, which is left unaddressed.

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%, so both parameters (serial, asset) are already documented in the schema, including the substring-matching hint. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (Lädt) and resource (letztes Screenshot-Verification-Bild eines Agents) and explains the diagnostic intent (warum der Boot-Test fehlschlug). It is clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from the very close sibling get-screenshot-failures, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 implies the usage context (diagnosing a failed boot test) and lists failure symptoms, but it never states when to use this tool versus get-screenshot-failures or the other diagnostic siblings. The routing decision is left to inference.

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