mimicus_capture_view

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: output arrives as MCP image content and no persistent screenshot file is written, clarifying the transient, side-effect-free nature of the call.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and result before adding the non-persistence caveat. Every clause earns its place; the semicolon clause is slightly run-on but not wasteful.

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 an output schema present, the description need not restate the return format, and it usefully notes the image-content behavior. However, for a tool requiring a sessionId it omits session prerequisites, selector semantics, and failure behavior, leaving notable gaps for a 2-parameter tool.

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%, so the description must carry the burden for both parameters, but it never names sessionId, selector, or their expected formats. 'Bounded selected-region' hints at the selector and the viewport default hints at its absence, but neither is tied explicitly to a parameter.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it returns a viewport or selected-region screenshot as MCP image content. This separates it from siblings like mimicus_capture_motion, though it never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 description explains what the tool produces but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. an active session), and no mention of alternatives such as capture_motion or analyze_element. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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