Capturar capítulo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the solo-mode URL form (?solo=id:p), device modes, and reduced-motion support, but says nothing about return format (image payload?), permissions, or any side effects. For an unannotated capture tool this is a significant gap.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the scroll/section scoping before the workflow hint. Dense but efficient, with no filler.

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?

With 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain the majority of parameters, the return value, or the relationship between url/pagina/projeto and the capture target, leaving an agent under-equipped to invoke it correctly.

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 only 25% (only p and capitulo are documented). The description maps loosely to p (scroll point), capitulo (section by id), and dispositivo (desktop/celular/reduzido), but leaves url, altura, largura, pagina, and projeto entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb ('Fotografa') and resource (a chapter fixed at any scroll point, or a section by id), with the device modes enumerated. It differentiates itself somewhat from capture-adjacent siblings by scoping to scroll positions and solo mode, though it never spells out what the output actually is.

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 closing sentence gives a workflow ('veja, descreva o que sente, aplique nota_de_direcao, capture de novo') that ties this tool to the sibling nota_de_direcao in an iterative loop. However it gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., versus extrair_frames or folha_de_contato) and no when-not conditions.

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