mimicus_capture_motion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent, world-touching operation. The description usefully adds that only one 'safe' interaction is applied between frames, but leaves 'safe' undefined and doesn't describe side effects on page or session state. No contradiction with annotations.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the scope exclusion second. No filler, though the second sentence is a negation rather than a routing rule.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but a complex tool with a nested interaction schema and zero parameter documentation is under-served. The description gives no frame/interval semantics or interaction-object detail needed to call 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 0% across 5 parameters, including a deeply nested interaction object with 13 sub-properties and enums. The description gestures at 'timestamped images' and 'one interaction' but never explains frames, intervalMs, selector, or sessionId, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (capture) and resource (a selected effect as timestamped images), which is clear and distinguishable from a static-capture sibling like mimicus_capture_view. The scope qualifier 'No automatic whole-site recording' sharpens the boundary, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Implies usage context (motion/effect capture with an optional interaction) and gives one exclusion ('No automatic whole-site recording'), but never states when to prefer this over mimicus_capture_view or mimicus_interact. Guidance is inferable rather than explicit.

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