capture_window

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool captures a live, visible window and uses a local Ollama model, which implies real-state analysis and privacy considerations. However, it does not mention required permissions, whether it brings the window to front, or any side effects, leaving notable behavioral gaps.

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 two efficient sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by a single high-value comparison sentence. No wasted words.

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?

While the description covers purpose and differentiates from a sibling, the tool is complex (6 params, nested object, no output schema). It does not explain the return format (e.g., text from the vision model), prerequisites (e.g., screen recording permission), or the effect of crop/scale parameters. These gaps are significant for an agent unfamiliar with the tool.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all six parameters, including the nested crop object and model default. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's action ('Capture a specific app window currently visible on screen and analyze it with a local Ollama vision model'), specifies the resource (specific app window), and differentiates from the sibling tool analyze_screenshot. The verb is specific and the scope is explicit.

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 explicitly names an alternative (analyze_screenshot) and contrasts their behavior ('this sees your real browser with your logged-in session and live state'), providing a clear use case ('ideal for testing local apps'). It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement, but the contrast implies it.

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