babylonjs_spector_capture

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose what the tool returns and its availability precondition, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential side effects, performance impact, whether capture pauses rendering, or how the data is returned. Partial transparency only.

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 two compact sentences that front-load the main action and rationale, then list outputs and a key precondition. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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?

This tool has no output schema, so the description correctly enumerates the returned data categories (draw call count, shader source, WebGL state, texture bindings, performance data) and the runtime requirement. It could additionally explain how the capture affects the scene or how to choose between this and scene_inspect/screenshot, but the essential invocation context is present.

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%: both detailLevel and quickCapture have descriptive text and detailLevel has an enum with meanings. The description itself adds no parameter-level information, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Capture'), resource ('a WebGL frame'), and technique ('using Spector.js'), and clarifies the purpose as 'low-level rendering inspection'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like babylonjs_screenshot or babylonjs_scene_inspect, especially by enumerating rendering-specific outputs.

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 gives clear context by stating the tool is for low-level rendering inspection and only available when a browser with WebGL is connected. It does not explicitly enumerate sibling alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5, but the intended usage is clearly communicated.

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