capture_screenshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It only repeats the tool's name and basic action without disclosing that a file is written, that there is a default delay, that window_title selects the source window, or what happens if no game is running. This is no richer than the tool name itself.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, but that is addressed in other dimensions. As far as conciseness itself, it earns a high score for efficiency, though not a perfect 5 because it lacks any structural aid (e.g., examples or use-case hints).

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more behavioral context, such as return format, file output behavior, or fallback behavior. The tool has 3 optional parameters and would benefit from explaining what happens when parameters are omitted. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or edge cases.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter (delay, output_path, window_title) already has a meaningful schema description. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline is 3 because the schema carries the full burden. The description does not introduce any new meaning or clarify parameter relationships.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Capture screenshot of running game.' It is unambiguous about the core action, but it does not specify what exactly is captured (e.g., the game window, the full screen) or differentiate from sibling tools like runtime_screenshot or editor_take_screenshot. This fits the 'clear but no sibling differentiation' category.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as editor_take_screenshot (editor view) or runtime_screenshot (similar runtime capture). There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., running game) or exclusions. The only implied usage is 'running game,' but it is not explicit.

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