figcraft_screenshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the output format. It does not say whether a file is written to disk and where, whether image data is returned, whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, or what happens if no frame matches the given ids. For a capture tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a serious gap.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the action and the object being captured. The 'Harness quality gate' clause is domain jargon that consumes space without informing an agent how to call the tool, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two optional parameters and no annotations or output schema mean the description must explain what comes back and any side effects, and it does neither. An agent cannot tell whether the result is a file path, image bytes, or a URL, nor whether a file gets written. Only the PNG format is specified.

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 the ids array and scale parameter are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the canvas-versus-specific-frame distinction that the schema's ids description already conveys, adding no syntax, format, or range detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: take a visual snapshot of the active canvas or a specific frame in PNG format. That is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_node or audit_layout. The trailing phrase about 'Harness quality gate evidence' adds a use motive rather than a new capability, and the near-identical sibling named 'screenshot' is not differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'untuk bukti Harness quality gate', which suggests capturing evidence for a quality gate. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over audit_layout or inspect_document, and no mention of prerequisites such as an open file or GUI being ready (note the sibling figcraft_ensure_gui exists).

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