Capture DOS graphics screen

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows the operation is safe. The description adds scoping to standard graphics framebuffers, but it does not discuss failure modes or behavior for unsupported modes. 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?

The description is a single, precise sentence that wastes no words and front-loads the action. It is appropriately concise and 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?

The tool is simple and the output schema covers return values, so that aspect is handled. However, the 'target' parameter is undocumented, and the description does not differentiate from the sibling capture_screen, creating ambiguity. Overall, the description is adequate but has notable gaps in parameter and usage context.

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 a single optional 'target' parameter with no description (0% schema coverage). The description does not mention this parameter or explain its meaning, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use it. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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's action: capturing a graphics framebuffer for specific video standards (CGA, Hercules, EGA, VGA). This distinguishes it from the sibling capture_screen by specifying 'graphics framebuffer' and the supported modes.

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 implies the tool is for graphics modes but does not explicitly state when to use it over capture_screen or other alternatives. It also lacks any mention of prerequisites or context for the target parameter, offering only implicit usage guidance.

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