capture

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses side effects (files saved in the report folder), constraints (only the app's own origin, max 12 routes), and return information (files saved, HTTP status, JS errors). This goes well beyond a basic statement of what the tool does.

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 dense sentences, each earning its place: the operation, the workflow timing, and the return value/constraints. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

The description explains inputs (with schema covering defaults), behavior, side effects, constraints, and return values despite no output schema. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly at the right point in the review workflow.

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 fully documents the routes parameter, including examples and default behavior. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which matches the baseline for high coverage.

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 action ('Save a screenshot and the probe results of each route') with a clear resource (routes) and concrete detail (two viewport sizes, report folder). This distinguishes capture from sibling tools like screenshot or probe by framing it as a composite operation, so an agent can identify when this tool is the right one.

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?

It gives explicit timing: 'Use it right after start_review, before walking the core jobs.' It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the workflow placement is clear enough to guide selection.

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