capture_window

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions special behaviors for print method and noActivate, but lacks details on permission requirements, error handling (e.g., if no window matches), or side effects (e.g., window state changes). The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and highlight two key options. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.

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 9 parameters (complex) and no output schema, the description could be more complete. It doesn't mention the output format (presumably an image file) or error conditions. However, the high schema coverage and concise core description make it minimally viable.

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 67% (high), so the schema already documents many parameters. The description adds context for captureMethod ('captures window content even behind other windows') and noActivate ('avoids stealing focus'), but these are partially redundant with schema descriptions. The added value is modest, warranting a baseline of 3.

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 states the verb 'Capture' and resource 'a window', and lists specific identification methods (hwnd, pid, process name, title substring). This distinguishes it from siblings like capture_screen_region (which captures a region, not a window) and list_windows (which lists windows without capturing).

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 guidance on when to use 'print' capture method (for occluded/minimized windows) and noActivate (to avoid stealing focus). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives beyond implicit differentiation.

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