capture_artifact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that an optional run_id routes under runs/, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it omits side effects, required permissions, or response behavior, leaving the agent with only partial transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose and a key routing behavior with no wasted words. Every piece of text adds value.

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 simple 2-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose and kind values, but leaves gaps: metadata contents are not clearly specified, and the return value or confirmation behavior is not mentioned. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, a bit more detail would be needed for full completeness.

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 compensate. It explicitly lists the allowed values for the required 'kind' parameter (screenshot, dom_snapshot, network_log), which is critical since the schema has no enums. It also hints at metadata semantics via the run_id routing note, though the metadata parameter itself remains vaguely defined.

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 specific artifact types (screenshot, dom_snapshot, network_log) and mentions routing under runs/. The verb 'Capture' plus explicit resource types makes the purpose specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like capture_auth_session.

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?

Usage is implied by listing artifact kinds, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are provided.

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