sandbox_screenshot

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, non-destructive, non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the result is an artifact rather than inline data, and a specific second tool is needed to fetch it.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the retrieval hint as a trailing clause. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 no-arg capture tool with a clear artifact handoff and annotations covering safety, this is nearly sufficient. The only gap is that the artifact identifier/handle returned is not mentioned, though an agent can discover that via sandbox_artifact.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage there is nothing to document; the baseline for a no-argument tool applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters and instead explains the artifact handoff.

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?

Specific verb (capture) plus a precise resource (guest virtual desktop) and output form (PNG artifact). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by pointing at sandbox_artifact for retrieval rather than implying inline image return.

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?

It clearly states the follow-up workflow — capture here, retrieve via sandbox_artifact — which tells the agent how this tool fits with a sibling. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over sandbox_windows or sandbox_browser, so conditional guidance is incomplete.

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