swebsy_capture

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the side effect (writes a file under .swebsy-agent/screenshots/) and the return value (file path), which is good. However, it doesn't mention whether the capture is synchronous, whether it overwrites existing files, or whether it requires a page to be open/selected. These are moderate gaps for a capture tool.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action and output, the second gives the return value, the third provides scoping guidance. The warning is front-loaded and directly actionable.

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 3 params, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the core workflow well: what it does, where it writes, what it returns, and when to scope. The main missing piece is the targetPath vs selectionOnly interaction, and whether a page must be active. These are minor but real gaps.

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 all three parameters. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between targetPath and read_page target paths, and by warning about downscaling. But it doesn't clarify the interaction between targetPath and selectionOnly, which is a meaningful semantic gap.

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 ('Capture'), a resource ('styled screenshot of the current page'), and a concrete output ('written under .swebsy-agent/screenshots/', 'Returns the file path'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning read_page target paths and component-level capture, which no other sibling name suggests.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use targetPath ('when verifying ONE section') and warns against whole-page PNGs for component detail. It also implies the alternative (read_page for structural verification) by referencing read_page target paths. This is clear, actionable guidance.

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