capture_window

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: case-insensitive matching on class or title, and the 'largest match wins' tie-break rule. It is silent, though, on what happens when nothing matches, whether the window is raised/focused, or any screen-capture permission requirements.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the matching rule, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed 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 values need not be explained, and the param semantics plus disambiguation rule cover the essentials for a single-parameter tool. The only gap is undocumented no-match/error behavior.

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 the lone 'query' parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate — and it does, defining query as a class or title substring matched case-insensitively. Only the expected input format (plain string vs pattern) is left implicit.

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+resource ('Screenshot a window') and immediately scopes it with the matching rule, which separates it from capture_monitor, capture_region, and capture_active_window. An agent can tell it selects a window by partial match without opening any schema.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, even though capture_active_window and list_windows are plausible siblings. The matching behavior implies the tool is for partial-name window capture, but the agent must infer that rather than being told.

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