Run Render Capture

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the tool may start a dev server and require user clicking, or run an automated test suite, and that user intent must be confirmed first. However, it does not mention whether existing capture data is overwritten, whether the call blocks until the user finishes, or what side effects to expect beyond render generation.

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 well-structured: it leads with the prerequisite, then gives a clear instruction to ask the user, followed by a scannable two-option list. Every sentence earns its place and there is no 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 two-parameter tool with no output schema nested in a workflow, the description covers the call trigger, the required user confirmation, and the two valid generation methods. It does not describe return behavior or what happens after capture completes, but the sibling tools such as stop_render_capture and get_captured_renders make the surrounding workflow inferable.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both sessionId and method, including enum meanings and provenance. The description adds workflow context around the method choices but does not materially extend the parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 places the tool in a workflow: it is called after instrumentation is wired up, and it triggers render generation via one of two methods. It distinguishes itself from begin_render_analysis by referencing it as the prerequisite step, and from the analysis/capture siblings by its role as the run step, though it relies somewhat on the title for the exact action.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: only after steps 1–3 of begin_render_analysis, and only after asking the user which render method they want. It enumerates both acceptable methods (manual-interaction and test-suite) and describes what each entails, so an agent knows exactly how to proceed.

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