capture_page_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the mechanism (Puppeteer load, auditor injection, wait, inline return) and the offline/no-account constraint, but omits permission needs, timeouts/failure behavior, rate limits, and expected issue volume or format.

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?

Two tight sentences with the operational pipeline front-loaded and the offline constraint appended. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably too terse given the missing usage guidance.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should carry more weight. 'Return captured issues inline' is vague about the return shape, and nothing is said about failure modes, duration implications of waitMs, or how collectors affect output.

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 67%: waitMs and collectors are documented in-schema, while url has only a format constraint. The description adds no further semantics for any parameter, so it neither compensates for nor exceeds the schema baseline.

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 pipeline: load a page with Puppeteer, inject the SiteLint auditor, wait, and return issues. This is concrete enough for an agent to know the tool produces issue captures. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like audit_url or audit_html, leaving the agent to infer which captures runtime issues versus static ones.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives such as audit_url or check_wcag_criterion. The only contextual hint is 'No platform account required — works fully offline,' which describes a constraint rather than a selection condition.

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