capture_evidence

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool creates an independent archive, timestamp, hash, and fingerprint, implying a non-destructive snapshot. However, it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if the URL is unreachable—gaps that a richer description or annotations would fill.

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 three sentences, each adding distinct value: what evidence is captured, return type, and optimal usage order. No unnecessary words or repetition. Front-loaded with the key action and components.

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 parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, evidence types, return value, and usage order. It lacks error or auth context but is otherwise complete. A manifest structure description would improve completeness but is not essential.

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 both parameters described. The description explains the overall tool behavior but adds little to individual parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., URL of infringing post, additional media URLs). The connection between mediaUrls and the PDQ fingerprint is implied but not explicit.

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 tool captures evidence of a URL hosting infringing content, listing specific actions (archive snapshot, timestamp, SHA-256, PDQ fingerprint) and output (typed evidence manifest). It distinguishes itself from siblings (check_authorization, draft_notice, get_playbook) which handle other workflow steps.

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 'Run this FIRST, before the content is taken down or changed,' providing clear temporal guidance. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios or name alternatives, but the sibling tools imply a workflow where this is the initial step.

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