weather_capture_phase_stills

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses side effects (setting driver, launching game, killing game, restoring original driver), the focus-sensitive behavior, and the NOFOCUS failure signal. This is notably transparent for a tool that mutates game state.

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?

Two sentences precisely describe the full workflow and the critical operational caveat. The phrase 'One-call arc verification' is front-loaded, and every clause contributes meaning without redundancy.

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?

The description gives a strong operational narrative, but for a 7-param tool with no output schema and no annotations it is incomplete: it does not explain return values, output locations, the effect of dryRun, or the role of timeoutSeconds/fixedTimerSeconds. The existing prose covers workflow but not enough of the input/output contract.

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 only 29%, and only 'map' and 'profile' have schema docs. The description mentions the profile driver and fixed timer conceptually, but never explains resX,resY, dryRun, timeoutSeconds, or fixedTimerSeconds. It leaves most parameters underspecified and does not compensate for the low 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 specifies a clear multi-step workflow: it sets a TOD profile's driver, launches the map, detects run start, captures phase-named screenshots, kills the game, and restores the original driver. This goes beyond the name and clearly identifies the tool's purpose, distinguishing it as an orchestrated verification workflow rather than a simple screenshot utility.

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 gives useful usage context: it is a 'One-call arc verification' tool and explicitly warns that the machine should be idle-ish because captures are focus-verified and report NOFOCUS if focus is lost. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not, but the environment prerequisite provides actionable guidance.

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