rec_capture

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. Beyond that, the description adds real behavioral detail: the built-in wait capped at 60 s, the returned artifacts (per-symbol statistics, completeness, integrity/PLC timeline verdict, file path), and the optional per-cycle counter — information the annotations cannot convey.

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, front-loaded with the operation and its return payload, with the routing advice last. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description sensibly summarizes them anyway. The gap is parameter-level: five of seven inputs are unexplained, which is a meaningful omission for a tool whose schema gives no guidance.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It clarifies only the `counter` parameter ('optional per-cycle `counter`') and implies `seconds` via 'for N s'; mode, engine, prefix, symbols, and cycle_ms remain entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 concrete composite operation — start, wait (≤60 s), stop, and return per-symbol stats plus a rec_verify verdict and file path — using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling rec_start, so an agent can differentiate without opening either schema.

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 names the alternative (rec_start) and the precise condition that selects it: 'For longer or triggered captures use rec_start.' That routes the agent correctly between the two recording entry points.

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