open_capture

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly notes that opening a capture will close any currently open capture, which is a key side effect. It also mentions the return type. However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., invalid path) or whether the operation is safe/reversible, but the side effect disclosure is valuable and goes beyond the schema.

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 concise and well-structured with clear sections: a one-sentence overview, an Args section, a Returns line, and a Note. Every sentence adds value—no filler. The side effect is front-loaded via the Note, making it prominent. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.

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?

There is an output schema (though not shown), so the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the main behavior (opening a file), the single parameter, and the key side effect. It lacks information about potential errors or preconditions, but for a straightforward 'open' tool, it is largely complete. The existence of an output schema means the return format is presumably documented there.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The 'Args:' section explicitly explains that capture_path is the 'Full path to the capture file to open', adding meaning beyond the schema's bare string type. This clarifies the expected format and intent, though it could specify path delimiters or relative path handling, but the provided explanation is sufficient for a single parameter.

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 'Open' and the resource 'RenderDoc capture file (.rdc)', which is specific and unambiguous. It also notes that it returns success status and information, distinguishing it from the sibling get_* tools which are read-only queries. The purpose is immediately clear.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's implied that one must open a capture before querying it with the get_* tools, the description does not say so directly. There is no mention of when not to use it or any prerequisites. It provides functional context but lacks explicit routing guidance.

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