capture_distill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait — that summarization depends on client LLM sampling support — which is useful for an agent to know before invoking. It still omits where the note lands, whether an existing note is overwritten, and any permission requirement.

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 short blocks: purpose first, then parameter notes. Front-loaded and free of filler, though the parameter lines are terse enough to read as a fragment rather than a coherent sentence.

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?

Output schema exists, so return-value explanation is rightly omitted, and the enum-like detail for kind is helpful. But for a tool whose siblings are near-duplicates, the missing selection criteria and the undisclosed destination/overwrite behavior leave a real gap.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it enumerates the valid kind values (learning | work | quick) and explains topic_or_domain conditionally per kind with examples. The remaining two parameters (title, source_text) are self-evident from their names.

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?

States a concrete two-step verb sequence (summarize via client LLM sampling, then save as a vault note) with clear resource. However it never distinguishes itself from the very similar siblings capture_quick, capture_learning, and capture_work, so an agent cannot tell why it would pick this one.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all, and no exclusions. The sibling set is nearly identical in name (capture_quick/capture_learning/capture_work), which is exactly where a routing hint is needed most, yet none is given.

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