开始一轮抓取

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose a meaningful side effect: the buffer is cleared, which destroys any previously captured console/network/error data. It also defines the capture scope and the timestamping behavior. It omits what happens if a capture is already running and any permission/session requirements.

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?

A single dense sentence with the destructive buffer-clear front-loaded and the scoping clause second. No filler, nothing repeated from the title.

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?

For a zero-required-param lifecycle starter with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers side effects and capture scope adequately. Remaining gaps (re-invocation behavior, interaction with capture_stop/status, return value) are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 targetId's meaning ('optionally switch to that tab') is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter detail, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a concrete verb and resource: it begins a capture round, clears the buffer, and stamps a start time. It is clearly the initiator of a capture lifecycle, but it never distinguishes itself by name from the closely related capture_status/capture_stop (or recording_start) siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied by '之后发生的...都会被计入本轮抓取' – the agent can infer it should be called before the activity it wants recorded. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus capture_status, capture_stop, or the overlapping recording_start, nor any prerequisite (e.g. session/target requirement).

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