capture_slides

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: requires Playwright and chromium installation, no LLM call, server-side execution, how slide_indices empty means all, and iteration versioning. The return structure is also described.

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 efficient, with a clear structure: introductory sentence, requirement note, Args list, Returns list, and Next step. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Despite the tool being part of a larger pipeline (many siblings like prepare_* and ingest_*), the description provides sufficient context: it is Phase 1 of visual QA, has an output schema (though description already explains returns), and lists required setup. No additional information is needed for correct invocation.

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, so the description carries the full burden. It explains each parameter: project_id is required, slide_indices are 1-based comma-separated (empty means all), and iteration is 0-based for versioning. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema.

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 captures slide screenshots via Playwright, server-side, and distinguishes it from siblings by positioning it as Phase 1 of visual QA. The verb 'captures' and resource 'slide screenshots' are specific and unambiguous.

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 clear context: it is used for visual QA, Phase 1, and explicitly states the next step is to call prepare_visual_qa_analysis. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sequential usage guidance is strong.

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