capture_operation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a mutation ('perform'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, what happens on start/stop (e.g., recording begins/ends), error conditions, or system impact. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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 concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating purpose from usage, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 complexity (a mutation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'capture' means, what the tool returns, error handling, or dependencies. For a tool that likely controls a critical function like recording, this is inadequate.

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%, with the single parameter 'operation' fully documented in the schema (enum: start/stop). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as what 'start' or 'stop' do contextually. Baseline is 3 since 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 'Perform a capture operation (start or stop)' states the action (perform) and resource (capture operation), but is vague about what 'capture' entails. It distinguishes from siblings like 'capture_get_encodings' by being an action rather than a query, but doesn't specify what is being captured (e.g., video, audio, screen).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, side effects, or relationships to other tools like 'capture_get_status' or 'capture_get_settings'. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameter alone.

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