pix_capture_uwp_app

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not idempotent. The description adds the key behavioral fact that the tool launches a UWP app, implying a side effect beyond capture. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as file creation, app state changes, or timeout effects. 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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose is stated in the first sentence, followed by a practical tip. It is efficiently written without unnecessary filler.

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?

For a tool with 11 parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no usage guidance, the description is incomplete. It addresses only the required parameters and gives no example invocation, optional parameter semantics, or environmental prerequisites. While the output schema presumably covers return values, the parameter landscape remains largely unexplained.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does helpfully describe how to obtain the two required parameters (package_full_name and application_id) via the PIX UI. However, it offers no explanation of the nine optional parameters such as frames, output_file, capture_count, and timeout_seconds, leaving substantial semantic gaps.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Launch a UWP app and capture it.' This distinguishes it from sibling capture tools that target attached processes or programmatic capture, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 provides a how-to tip for obtaining package and application IDs, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling capture tools like pix_capture_attached_process or pix_capture_programmatic. With many similar capture tools in the sibling list, selection criteria are notably absent.

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