Capture DOS text screen

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds useful details about what is captured (cell attributes and cursor state), which is not evident from annotations alone. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like failure modes or return format details, but the output schema likely covers the latter.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action and scope. It avoids unnecessary words and is easy to parse.

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 simple nature of the tool, the description covers the primary purpose and output components, aided by annotations and an output schema. However, it omits any explanation of the 'target' parameter, leaving a gap in completeness for a tool with at least one parameter.

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 includes one optional parameter 'target' with no description, and schema_description_coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention or explain the parameter at all, failing to compensate for the missing parameter documentation. The name 'target' gives a vague hint but is insufficient.

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 the full fixed-width text screen, cell attributes, and cursor state, specifying a distinct resource and action. It differentiates from the sibling tool 'capture_graphics' by explicitly mentioning 'text screen' and the fixed-width nature.

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 when to use it (for capturing text screen state) through the wording 'text screen,' but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. There is no direct comparison to capture_graphics or other siblings, so usage context is only implied.

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