get_capture_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns metadata and warnings, but says nothing about whether it is purely read-only, any permission requirements, or behavior when the capture is not open. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and no wasted words. Appropriately sized for a simple getter.

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?

With an output schema present, the return values (metadata and warnings) need not be detailed in the description. However, given no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves gaps around the required capture_id and read-only behavior that a minimal getter could plausibly fill.

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% and the single parameter (capture_id) is undocumented. The description alludes to a 'capture session' but adds no meaning about what capture_id identifies, its format, or its relationship to an open session, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 specific verb (Return) and resource (metadata and warnings for an open capture session), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like open_capture, close_capture, and get_event. The purpose is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly name a contrasting sibling.

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 phrase 'for an open capture session' implies a prerequisite (a session must exist, presumably via open_capture), giving implied usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative, so the guidance remains inferential.

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