capture_remote_control

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing side effects, permissions, and return behavior. It only hints that output is 'visible' (presumably current screen), but does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether the session must be active, or what happens if no output is available. This is insufficient for a tool with no safety hints.

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 a single, grammatically complete sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It contains no fluff or repetition, but it is somewhat under-specified for a tool with three parameters and no annotations. Still, it is concise and well-formed.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, none required, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too minimal. It does not mention return format, error conditions, whether it waits for new output, or how to differentiate between active and inactive sessions. Sibling tools suggest a broader remote control workflow, but this description does not connect to that context.

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 33% (only tmuxSession has a description, and it says 'deprecated alias'). The description itself does not explain any parameters, such as 'lines' (which likely controls the number of lines captured) or 'managedSession' (which identifies the target session). The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no value beyond the schema, and for 'lines' there is no schema description either.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Capture visible terminal output') and the target resource ('managed native Rail Connector Control session'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like send_text or send_key which modify the session. It lacks explicit mention of returning a snapshot, but 'visible terminal output' is specific enough.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wait_for_claude_turn or get_claude_session. There are no exclusion criteria, prerequisites, or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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