recapture_views

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a destructive side effect (old screenshots deleted per retention policy) and a non-destructive guarantee (blocks not replaced). It lacks error conditions or prerequisites but covers key behavioral traits.

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 with no redundancy. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the side effect is stated clearly. Efficient and well-structured.

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 two-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and side effect, but leaves gaps about the exact semantics of 'revision' and the structure of 'views_path'. Given the low complexity, it is mostly adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains 'views_path' via the 'optional sidecar' clause (omitted reuses current views), but the 'revision' parameter is not explicitly defined beyond its role in the operation. The format of the sidecar is also unspecified.

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 action (capture), the resource (placed build), and a differentiator ('without replacing blocks'). It also specifies the result (new revision and capture set), distinguishing it from sibling capture retrieval tools like list_captures or get_capture.

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 implies usage by describing the sidecar behavior and the non-replacement aspect, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. The guidance is more about parameter behavior than tool selection.

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