graphic_capture

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint and destructiveHint, and the description adds useful non-obvious behavior: it runs a headless browser and can be validated via `doctor`. It does not detail all side effects, but the destructive flag plus the force parameter's schema description cover the main overwrite behavior without contradiction.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: two compact sentences state the scope, the trigger condition, the sibling behavior, and the runtime prerequisite. The most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 an output schema present, all parameters documented in the input schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description supplies the missing context: when to invoke, what scope it operates over, and what to check before running. Nothing critical for correct invocation is omitted.

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 input schema fully documents name, path, force, and pages. The description's 'one...or every one whose capture is missing or stale' adds a light semantic gloss on `name`, but it does not materially improve on the schema, 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Capture one animated graphic, or every one whose capture is missing or stale.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tools graphic_new and graphic_edit by stating that those tools capture on their own, so this tool's role is clear against closely related 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?

It explicitly states when this tool is needed ('after a canvas or frame-rate change') and when it is not ('graphic_new and graphic_edit capture on their own'). It also points to `doctor` as the way to check the headless-browser prerequisite, giving the agent actionable selection guidance.

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