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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the upstream endpoint refreshes status from netmond's IPC for active captures, making counters live, and it returns the same row shape as capture_list. It also explains why the chunks endpoint is excluded. Minor gap: it doesn't describe error behavior or what happens if the capture id doesn't exist, but the added context is strong.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: it opens with the core purpose, then explains the live-refresh behavior, return shape, exclusions, permission, and an example. Every sentence earns its place, and the exclusions are clearly separated from the main behavior.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations and a 100% schema-covered parameter, the description is complete. It covers the endpoint, live behavior, return shape, exclusions, permission, and an example. There is no output schema, but the description explicitly states the return shape matches capture_list rows, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the result.

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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter (id) is already described as 'Capture id (captures.id).' The description adds a concrete example (capture_get({id: 17})) and clarifies that the id refers to a capture row, which reinforces the schema. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, the description's added value is modest but sufficient.

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 ('read-only single-capture detail'), names the wrapped endpoint (GET /api/captures/{id}), and distinguishes it from capture_list and capture_stop/delete/download. It clearly identifies the resource and scope, making it easy for an agent to know what this tool does.

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 says when to use it (single-capture detail, live counters for active captures) and what it is NOT for: capture_stop, capture_delete, capture_download, and the chunks endpoint are not wrapped. It also gives a permission note and a concrete example, so an agent has clear selection and invocation guidance.

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