tools_gowitness

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

The description discloses the underlying technology (headless Chrome) and the non-destructive nature of the operation (screenshot). However, with no annotations, it could further clarify safety (e.g., read-only) and error handling.

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 concise and well-structured: a purpose statement, technology detail, use cases, parameter list with examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, and parameters adequately for a simple screenshot tool. Output schema is present, so return format is not required. Could discuss prerequisites or error handling, but not essential.

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?

All four parameters are explained with descriptions and examples, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. The description provides meaningful context beyond just types and defaults.

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 clearly states it captures a screenshot of a web page using gowitness, with specific use cases for visual reconnaissance and documentation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tools_nmap or tools_gobuster, which are for network scanning.

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 implies use for visual reconnaissance but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides context by listing use cases, but no exclusions or comparisons to similar tools.

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