scout_capture

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format (PNG), content (element bounds plus margin), and write location (.scenescout/captures/), but does not address permissions, error cases, overwrite behavior, or what is returned.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output path. The ref-sourcing instruction and the design-audit exclusion each earn their place, with no wasted wording.

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 no-output-schema, no-annotation tool with five parameters, the description covers purpose, element selection, output location, and sibling routing well. It does not state what the tool returns (e.g., a capture key), though the schema's key parameter implies a return artifact.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that ref comes from the latest scout_snapshot and adds conceptual meaning to margin, but does not add syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: save a PNG of ONE element from a real screenshot, with scope (bounds plus margin) and output location (.scenescout/captures/). It distinguishes itself from the full-page sibling scout_screenshot by emphasizing 'ONE element' and from scout_design_audit by name.

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?

Tells the agent to supply the element's ref from the latest scout_snapshot, and explicitly routes design judgment to scout_design_audit. It implies the contrast with full-page scout_screenshot via 'ONE element' but does not name that alternative directly.

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