pix_capture_programmatic

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idle hints absent), so the description carries most of the burden. It discloses a wait-then-save behavior and the app-side requirement, but it does not clarify whether this tool launches, attaches to, or monitors the target app, despite parameters like executable, process_id, command_line, and until_exit that suggest such behavior.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences, with the core behavior front-loaded. There is no redundant wording, and every sentence adds meaning.

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 9 parameters, no parameter descriptions, and many sibling capture tools, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain how to specify the target app, what the optional parameters do, or how this mode relates to the other capture tools, leaving an agent with insufficient information to invoke 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?

The input schema has 9 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description compensates for none of them. It never names output_directory, timeout_seconds, executable, process_id, or any other parameter, so an agent gets no help understanding what these values mean or how they control the capture.

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 that the tool waits for the app to trigger a programmatic capture and then saves results, naming a concrete example (PIXBeginCapture). This distinguishes it from the sibling capture tools, though it does not explicitly name them or contrast with them.

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 second sentence provides an explicit prerequisite: the app itself must call the PIX capture API. This implies the tool is for app-driven captures, but it does not say when to prefer this over pix_capture_app, pix_capture_attached_process, or pix_capture_timing, nor does it mention any when-not conditions.

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