hyperframes_capture

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses meaningful behavior: it downloads the requested website and assets, suppresses provider captions, and enforces a privacy/security posture via --skip-vision so inherited credentials cannot trigger upstream image uploads. It omits operational behavior such as overwrite semantics, timeout handling, or screenshot limits, but the security and side-effect disclosure is substantial.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by asset-download context, a security note, and a practical follow-up instruction. It is compact and mostly earns its space, though the internal reference to 'Kinocut passes --skip-vision' is implementation jargon that may be less actionable than plain language.

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 covers the high-level capture behavior and an important security constraint, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, for a six-parameter tool with only 17% schema description coverage, the description does not sufficiently explain key parameters or when to choose this capture tool over sibling Hyperframes tools.

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 17% and the description does not explain url, output, timeout_ms, skip_assets, or max_screenshots. The phrase 'Downloads the requested website and assets' loosely implies what skip_assets controls, but the description leaves most parameters undocumented, failing to 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Capture a website as editable Hyperframes components without provider captions.' This clearly identifies the operation and adds a distinguishing constraint (no provider captions), though it does not explicitly contrast with close siblings like hyperframes_snapshot or hyperframes_still.

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 implied by the capture purpose, and the final sentence gives a concrete follow-up instruction: 'Inspect retained images with your host's configured model instead.' However, it does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hyperframes_snapshot, hyperframes_still, or hyperframes_compositions, nor does it state any exclusions.

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