editor_take_screenshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that a PNG is captured, without detailing side effects like file creation, the meaning of the default path, overwrite behavior, or whether the whole editor window or just the viewport is captured. This is a significant lack of transparency for a tool that writes a file.

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 a single, clear sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the core action.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a single unexplained parameter, the description is incomplete. It leaves the agent uncertain about the parameter's role, side effects, and how to distinguish this tool from similar siblings. For such a simple tool, more context would be expected.

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 schema has one optional parameter 'path' with a default but no description. The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, and schema description coverage is 0%. The parameter name and default value hint at its purpose, but the description fails to add any explanatory value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Capture') and resource ('editor viewport') and specifies the output format (PNG). It clearly states what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like runtime_screenshot or capture_screenshot, so it falls short of a 5.

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 tool versus alternatives such as runtime_screenshot or capture_screenshot. No context is provided about the intended scenario or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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