screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavior itself; it establishes that this is a non-destructive visual capture scoped to the active canvas or a named frame, in PNG. It does not disclose what is returned (image payload vs. file path), whether a GUI session must be active (relevant given the figcraft_ensure_gui sibling), or any size/scale implications.

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 with the action and format front-loaded and no filler. It is lean, though the trailing purpose clause is the only place usage context appears, so a slightly richer structure would help.

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 two-optional-parameter capture tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers what is captured and in what format but leaves the return contract undefined. An agent knows how to call it but not what it receives back.

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 'ids' and 'scale' are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the optional frame targeting ('frame tertentu') and adds no syntax or interaction detail (e.g., multiple ids, effect of scale on output size), so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Ambil snapshot visual kanvas aktif atau frame tertentu') plus the output format (PNG), which clearly separates it from structural siblings like inspect_document or audit_layout. It does not explicitly name a sibling it replaces, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'untuk bukti Harness quality gate' implies the context of use (capturing visual evidence for verification), which is more than nothing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as inspect_document for non-visual data.

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