get_shot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses only that path is relative to the session dir. It does not say what is returned (image content vs. a reference), what happens on a missing/invalid path, or whether any session context must be established first.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the path convention and example are placed immediately where an agent needs them. The opening fragment is slightly under-specified rather than verbose.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers the input convention adequately but leaves the return value and failure behavior unexplained. Given there are no annotations to lean on, a sentence about what comes back (and what to do when the path is unknown) would close the remaining gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that path is relative to the session directory and gives a concrete example format ("shots/011-mark.jpg"). That is meaningful semantics beyond the bare {"path": string} schema, though it omits whether absolute paths or other prefixes are accepted.

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 is a noun phrase ("A screenshot image") rather than a verb+resource statement, so the retrieval action is only implied by the name get_shot. It does identify the resource as a screenshot image at a path, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_asr or get_dom_state, but an agent must infer that this tool fetches rather than describes an image.

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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as get_dom_state or segment_detail, and no mention of where a valid path comes from. The only guidance is the relative-path convention, which is about correctness of input rather than tool selection.

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