spawn_play_screenshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains the tool's purpose and implies read-only behavior (screenshot), but does not disclose return value semantics (e.g., what is returned when save=false), potential side effects, or authentication requirements. It does add valuable context about interpreting the screenshot, which exceeds a bare description.

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 a few sentences long but each one earns its place: action, primary usage, troubleshooting guidance, and optional behavior. It front-loads the core purpose and stays focused, though it could be slightly condensed without losing value.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description gives enough context for an agent to know what to do with the result ('look at the image'). It covers workflow timing, failure interpretation, and optional saving. The only notable gap is an explicit statement of the return format when save=false, but the overall guidance is robust for a screenshot tool.

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 coverage is 80%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no real parameter-level detail beyond the schema; it merely mentions 'Optionally save under the project,' which duplicates the save parameter description. The parameter semantics are adequately handled by the schema, and the description does not add further meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Screenshot the open play session.' It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings by identifying it as the primary visual check after spawn_push. No other sibling tool performs screenshots, so purpose is 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 provides explicit context: use it after spawn_push and before declaring the change done. It also gives a decision path (interpret the image, identify missing skills, load relevant craft) and notes an optional save. It doesn't list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the workflow guidance is strong.

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