Capture Page

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 mentions Playwright but does not disclose side effects like file saving, network requests, or that it renders JavaScript. The tool's full behavioral profile (output format, potential state changes) is left unexplained.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and key context. It is concise with no redundant information, making optimal use of its limited length.

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?

Given the high parameter count (14), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin to be contextually complete. It omits return format, output location, and behavioral side effects, and does not adequately differentiate from sibling tools like read_url or capture_motion.

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 covers 100% of the 14 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, but no compensation is needed given full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Capture') and resource ('rendered page evidence') and notes a use case ('when visual layout, screenshots, or browser state matter'), which reasonably distinguishes it from siblings like read_url. However, it could more explicitly mention screenshots as the primary output.

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 phrase 'when visual layout, screenshots, or browser state matter' provides clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for a single-sentence description.

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