capture_multiple_panes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that save_dir is auto-created, each pane's result is independently reported, exceptions in one pane do not affect others, and the response passes through size cap handling. This is useful behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 very concise, with three short sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add essential behavioral details. No redundant information or fluff.

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 explains the return structure and failure isolation, it does not clarify what 'ctx' means, and the pane_types type mismatch with the schema is a gap. For a tool with 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description is not fully complete, though it covers key aspects.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that pane_types is a list of pane type names and save_dir is auto-created, but it does not explain the 'ctx' parameter at all. Also, there is a mismatch: schema says pane_types is a string while description says it is a list, which could be confusing. Partial compensation only.

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 action (batch capture multiple panes) and the target resource (pane types). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like capture_pane_screenshot by emphasizing the batch aspect, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 this tool is for capturing multiple pane types at once, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives such as capture_pane_screenshot or when to prefer one over the other. There is no when/not-to-use guidance, only the implied batch use case.

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