capture_url

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool performs a non-destructive write. The description adds that it is SSRF-guarded (private/loopback addresses rejected) and saves content as a note, providing meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it could mention failure modes or content truncation.

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 sentences efficiently convey the action, constraints, and return value with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: action, guard, and return. No critical 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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for both parameters (url and project). The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions the return value (new note id). 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 states the action ('fetch a web page and save its readable content as a note') and the resource ('web page'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like notes_create by specifying the source is a URL. The verb 'capture' combined with 'URL' makes the purpose explicit.

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 implies usage for capturing web content into a note but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use notes_create directly). No exclusion criteria or alternative tool names are provided.

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