rba_capture_window_screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'visible' window, implying visibility is required, and says the result is returned as an MCP image. However, it does not disclose focus behavior, error conditions for hidden windows, output path handling, or image format details, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the action, target, and output format.

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 moderately simple tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. It explains the core functionality and return type, but lacks context on optional behaviors like saving to a path or window focusing. The schema fills in parameter details, making this adequate but with gaps.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify how parameters like focusWindow or outputPath affect the outcome. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the load.

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 verb ('Capture') and identifies the resource ('screenshot of a visible Windows process window') and output ('return it as an MCP image'). It is clear and distinct from the sibling rba_capture_roblox_screenshot, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rba_capture_roblox_screenshot. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context are given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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