capture_monitor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the default-focus behavior and that a file lands on disk (via `path`), but says nothing about screen-recording permissions, side effects on existing captures, or interaction with cleanup_captures.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the core action plus the key default are front-loaded before the return-value note. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 detail is not required, and the description wisely points at `path` anyway. Still, for a capture tool with no annotations it omits permission prerequisites and capture lifecycle context that an agent would need to call it reliably.

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 coverage is 0% and `name` has no in-schema description, so the description must compensate. It does explain the omission semantics clearly, but never states what a valid monitor name looks like or where to obtain one, leaving half the semantic gap open.

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 and resource ('Screenshot a full monitor'), and the scope word 'full monitor' implicitly separates it from capture_window and capture_region siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it falls just short of the top band.

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?

It gives one useful conditional: omitting `name` captures the focused monitor, which is real usage guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over capture_region, capture_window, or capture_active_window, nor that list_monitors is the way to discover valid names, so guidance is only implied.

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