get_capture

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the output type and resolution, but omits any details about cost, side effects, network dependencies, or whether the operation is read-only. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely fetches an image.

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 short sentence with no fluff, which is concise. However, it is under-specified—it fails to include necessary context about parameters or usage, so its brevity is not a virtue here. The structure is acceptable but not front-loaded with important constraints.

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?

Given three required parameters with zero schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot know what inputs to provide or what the returned image content will contain beyond a vague 'Minecraft screenshot.' This tool definition is far from minimally viable.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for its three parameters (revision, view_id, angle_id). The description does not explain what these parameters mean, how they relate to the screenshot, or what valid values look like. The agent is left completely in the dark about how to fill them.

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 tool returns a Minecraft screenshot as MCP image content, specifying a 1920x1080 resolution. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like list_captures or recapture_views, leaving the agent to infer which tool to pick.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusion conditions, so an agent has no explicit basis for selecting it over similar tools.

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