view_capture

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals that a file artifact is produced, but says nothing about permissions, whether an existing artifact is overwritten, or what must be true beforehand (a session and a displayed checkpoint). For a write/artifact-creating tool this is thin.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action and destination front-loaded and no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information, and length is well matched to a one-parameter tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the artifact destination is stated. However, preconditions (an active session, a displayed checkpoint) and any overwrite behavior are left implicit, which matters because there are no annotations to fall back on.

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 0% and the single session_id parameter is undescribed in both schema and description. The description does not explain what session_id identifies or whether it must match an open session, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Write) plus a specific artifact (native PNG of the displayed checkpoint) and the destination (session artifacts). The scope is unambiguous, though it never names or contrasts with the sibling view_clip, which sounds like a closely related view-image operation.

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?

'On-demand' implies this is invoked by explicit request rather than automatically, which gives a weak usage cue. There is no statement of when to prefer this over view_clip or other view_* siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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