screenshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it notes that capture operates in experimental headless mode and that analyze returns raw image data rather than a text description. It does not contradict the annotations, though it could disclose capture's potential file output behavior (which is partially covered by schema).

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 two sentences, front-loading the tool's overarching purpose. Each sentence earns its place: the first introduces the dual functionality, and the second breaks down the two modes with critical caveats. There is no redundancy, filler, or unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (16 parameters, two actions) and the rich schema coverage, the description provides an adequate overview. It clarifies the return type for analyze, which is essential since there is no output schema. The 'handoff' workflow is mentioned but not fully elaborated, and capture's return value is only implied. Still, the combination of description, annotations, and schema is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond mapping the action parameter to its two modes; it does not provide syntax, format, or additional constraints beyond what the schema already includes. Therefore, it earns the baseline score without raising it.

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's dual purpose: capturing Godot scene screenshots and enabling image analysis handoff. It distinguishes between the capture and analyze actions, specifying exactly what each does, and explicitly notes that analyze returns image data, not a text description. This provides a specific verb+resource+scope and differentiates the tool from any potential sibling tools.

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 clear guidance on when to use each mode: capture for taking screenshots, analyze for sending an image to the client's vision capability. It also explicitly warns that analyze does NOT return a text description, which helps the agent avoid misuse. However, it does not mention alternative tools or explicit exclusion scenarios, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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