capture_frames

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose useful traits: captures can be heavy/light (payloads:'none' for light capture), returns a summary, and the implied behavior that captures could be large (mention of shrinking via passLabel). However, it lacks explicit notes on side effects, error conditions, or whether the operation modifies state. It adds context but not a comprehensive behavioral profile.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then flow into usage guidance. No redundant repetition of schema details, and each sentence carries meaningful information. Structure is logical and efficient, though a bulleted format could slightly improve scannability.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the core behavior, provides performance-specific guidance, and names a follow-up tool (analyze_performance). It doesn't cover every edge case (e.g., error handling, capture persistence), but covers the primary usage scenarios an agent needs 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description enhances parameter semantics by linking profilePasses and payloads to performance analysis ('set profilePasses:true (and payloads:"none" for a light perf-only capture)'), and clarifying the implication of performance requests. This adds usage context beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions, justifying a 4.

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 states the specific action (capture one or more WebGPU frames) and the resource (a connected page), then details the returned summary (command/draw/pass counts, object counts, validation errors, flagged issues). It distinguishes itself from analyze_performance by explicitly naming that as the performance-analysis follow-up, and mentions list_pages for initial selection. Clear and specific, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all capture-related siblings like get_capture_summary.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use list_pages first if unsure' establishes a prerequisite, and 'For a PERFORMANCE analysis, set profilePasses:true ... then call analyze_performance' gives a concrete usage pattern. It further states that a performance request implies profilePasses:true, offering a clear rule for invocation. This goes beyond generic context to actionable instructions.

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