Retrieve a single capture by ID to inspect what happened before an OOMKill or crash, including pre-kill memory state, findings, related captures, and evidence files.
Read one capture: what happened, the memory picture before the kill, findings (what was using memory, crash signal, key log lines), related captures, and the list of evidence files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Capture ID from lastwords_list_captures |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with a pure read. It adds useful context about what the capture record reveals (crash signal, memory usage at kill time) but says nothing about behavior on an unknown/deleted ID, capture size, or whether evidence files are fetched or merely listed.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and then parenthesizes the returned payload. Every listed item carries information; no filler or restatement of the name/title.
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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned sections, which is the main completeness burden here. The remaining gap is failure behavior for a bad ID and whether the "evidence files" are just names or retrievable content.
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?
Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains that the ID comes from lastwords_list_captures. The description adds no extra meaning about the ID format or validity, making the baseline 3 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?
Specific verb and resource ("Read one capture") followed by an enumeration of exactly what the record contains: pre-kill memory picture, findings, crash signal, related captures, evidence files. An agent can distinguish it from lastwords_list_captures by the singular "one capture," though the description never names that sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: reading a single capture once you have an ID. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing to siblings such as lastwords_read_file for the evidence files mentioned in the description. The ID requirement is only visible in the schema, not in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.