get_element_screenshot

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

The description correctly matches the readOnlyHint annotation (true) by describing a non-destructive action. It adds behavioral context beyond annotations: the output format (base64 PNG) and the browser compatibility limitation (IE). This transparency is strong, though it could mention if the screenshot includes element visibility conditions or timeouts.

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 extremely concise—two sentences, zero redundancy. Every sentence provides unique value: the first states the core action and output, the second states a limitation. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, clear annotations), the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does, the output format, and a key limitation. It only lacks mention of potential prerequisites (e.g., element must be located first) or behavior for hidden elements, which are minor gaps.

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%, with the parameter 'elementId' already described as 'Element ID returned by find_element'. The description adds no additional parameter details but also does not need to, given the schema's clarity. A minor deduction because the description could clarify that the element must be visible or scrolled into view.

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 clearly states the tool takes a screenshot cropped to a single element and returns it as base64 PNG. It distinguishes itself from other screenshot tools in sibling list by specifying 'element' cropping. The verb 'Take' and resource 'screenshot cropped to a single element' are specific and unambiguous.

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 includes a clear exclusion: 'Not supported in IE context.' This provides context for when not to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over other screenshot tools (like full-page screenshots) or provide alternatives for IE context. The constraint is clear but partial.

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