renderdoc_open_capture

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 mentions the return of 'basic information' but does not detail critical aspects such as error handling, file format requirements, performance implications, or whether the capture remains open for subsequent operations. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by return details. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the purpose, and the second specifies the output. There is no wasted text, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 tool's moderate complexity (opening a file for analysis) and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and return information but lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps in completeness for effective agent use.

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 has 100% description coverage, with 'file_path' clearly documented as 'Absolute path to the RDC file to open.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 ('Open an RDC capture file for analysis') and the resource ('RDC capture file'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'renderdoc_close_capture' (closing) or 'renderdoc_get_capture_info' (retrieving info). It specifies the tool's function precisely without being vague or tautological.

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 usage context by stating it 'Returns basic information about the capture,' suggesting it's for initial analysis, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'renderdoc_get_capture_info' or prerequisites. This provides some guidance but lacks explicit comparisons or exclusions.

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