Capture Import Candidate

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds context about the target location and purpose, but does not disclose specific behavioral traits like side effects or permissions. With annotations present, the description provides moderate added value.

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 a single concise sentence (14 words) that is front-loaded with key information. It avoids waste, though it could benefit from some structure given the number of parameters.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters and many siblings, the description is too brief. It omits explanations for the 'kind' enum, 'limit', and 'title' parameters, and does not clarify the capture process or outcome beyond the target location.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only hints at the 'text' and 'path' parameters. It does not explain 'kind', 'limit', or 'title', leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 ('Capture'), the resource ('explicit text or a repository-local file'), and the target location ('into inbox/imports/ for review'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like memory.capture_miss by focusing on import candidates.

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 when to use: when you want to import text or a file for review. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, which is acceptable given the straightforward purpose.

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