plot_capture_window

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It states the core action and side effect (save to local file), giving a basic read-only capture impression. However, it does not disclose window-title matching behavior, failure/fallback behavior via include_all_titles_on_miss, or whether the operation alters IC-CAP state.

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?

One sentence conveys the tool's action, target, and output purpose without filler. The most important information (capture by name, save locally) is front-loaded.

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?

For a straightforward capture utility with well-covered parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it. It omits details such as return value or error behavior, but those are less critical for a save-to-file tool and are partly represented by parameters like include_all_titles_on_miss.

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%, so the schema already explains plot_name, save_dir, wait_seconds, filename_prefix, timeout_seconds, and include_all_titles_on_miss. The description adds only the general 'by name' and 'local file' framing, which does not materially extend the parameter-level documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Capture'), a precise resource ('IC-CAP Plot window'), and a concrete outcome ('save it to a local file for visual inspection'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like plot_setup or plot_display, whose purpose is managing or showing plots rather than saving an image.

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 phrase 'for visual inspection' implies when the tool should be used, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. An agent must infer from the tool name and sibling list rather than being told to prefer this over plot_display or other visualization tools.

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