invariance_capture_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'paginated' behavior, which is also implied by the cursor and limit parameters in the schema. It does not contradict annotations and adds minimal extra behavioral context beyond what structured fields provide. Given the annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences with no filler. The primary action and key distinguishing feature are front-loaded, and the list of filters is presented efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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 list tool with readOnlyHint and no output schema, the description covers the essential elements: what it lists, that it is paginated, and the available filters. It does not detail the response format or default ordering, but these are not critical for a list operation. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though slightly more detail on pagination usage could push it to a 5.

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 only 25% (only tags and cursor have descriptions). The description lists the filter fields but provides no semantic detail beyond their names. It does not explain how project_id, operator_id, etc., should be formatted or interpreted, nor does it compensate for the low coverage. The tool description fails to add value over the schema for most parameters, so a score of 2 is justified.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'captures', and adds a distinguishing detail that captures are standalone evidence not requiring an execution upfront. This sets it apart from sibling tools like invariance_capture_get (single fetch), invariance_capture_create (creation), and invariance_run_list (lists runs). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to list captures, and clarifies the domain-specific nature of captures (standalone evidence). It implies that for captures tied to executions, a different tool would be used, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions. This is clear context without explicit routing, which matches a score of 4.

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