Capture Screen

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks details on permissions needed, whether it's read-only or has side effects, error handling, or output format (e.g., text, image). This is inadequate for a tool that interacts with system resources.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and every part earns its place, making it highly concise 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?

Given the complexity of capturing screen content from a tmux target, with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the capture returns (e.g., text output, file path), error conditions, or dependencies, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('target' and 'lines') with clear descriptions. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of valid targets beyond the schema's format, making the baseline score appropriate.

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') and resource ('screen content from a tmux target'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_agent_status' or 'send_message', which might also involve tmux interactions, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., tmux must be running), exclusions, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'get_agent_status' that might provide status without capturing content.

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