spider_screenshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only says 'high-quality' and 'customizable'. It omits whether proxies are required for some sites, how rendering/waiting behaves, rate limits, or that output is an image rather than content.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined selection of detail.

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 12-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It says nothing about proxy usage, timing behavior, or the nature of the returned image, so an agent must infer everything from the schema.

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 description adds only the vague phrase 'customizable viewport and options' and explains no parameter. Although the input schema itself carries per-parameter descriptions, the description contributes no semantics beyond it, leaving the description-level meaning at a minimum.

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+resource ('Capture ... screenshots of webpages') with a hint at configurable scope. It is clearly distinct from siblings like spider_scrape and spider_links, though it never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus spider_scrape/spider_crawl, no prerequisites, and no mention of when a screenshot is inappropriate. The only implied usage is taking a visual capture of a page.

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