capture

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It describes modes (auto/UIA/OCR/browser) and the return format, but does not mention side effects, safety (read-only), or behavior when target is not found. It offers moderate 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 relatively concise and includes structured details about parameters and return values. It is slightly verbose but well-organized, with no redundant sentences.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure (ok, elements, text, method_used) and element properties (id, role, name, bbox). It provides enough context for an agent to invoke and interpret results, though it could mention error handling or limitations.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining 'target' as window title substring, 'browser' keyword, or empty string, and 'mode' with auto selection logic and forced options. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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 a target window or browser page and returns it as structured elements and text. It specifies the verb 'capture' effectively and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'act' or 'browser_*' by focusing on UI state capture.

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 how to specify target and mode but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like 'find' or 'wait_for'. The usage context is implied but not directly clarified, leaving the agent to infer.

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