pix_recapture_region

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

Annotations already mark the tool idempotent and non-destructive; the description adds that it writes a new .wpix with a filtered subset, implying no mutation of the source capture. It does not, however, disclose overwrite behavior, whether the source capture must be open, or any other side effects beyond file creation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes information about the operation, the output format, and the filtering scope.

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 output schema covers return-value expectations, and the description captures the core operation. However, with 0% schema description coverage, parameter semantics and prerequisites remain under-specified, so an agent must infer important details about the source capture, output path, and optional timeout behavior.

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 must compensate for insufficient parameter documentation. It only clarifies the role of start_global_id and end_global_id as range bounds; capture_id, output_file, and timeout_seconds are left entirely to inference from their property names.

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 states a specific verb ('Write'), a concrete deliverable ('a new .wpix'), and a precise scope ('only the events in [start_global_id, end_global_id]'). This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from read-only listing/export siblings and from pix_recapture_playback.

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 intended use is implied: use it when you want to create a subset capture file containing a range of global event IDs. However, the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives such as pix_export_event_list or pix_recapture_playback, nor does it mention any prerequisites like having a capture open.

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