open_capture

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one key behavioral constraint — only allow-listed .rdc files can be opened — plus the promise of a stable id. It omits error behavior for disallowed paths and lifecycle/resource implications (that a capture stays open until close_capture).

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?

One tight sentence, front-loaded with the operation and its scope, with zero 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?

For a single-parameter opener with an output schema (so the capture_id return need not be explained), the description covers what it does and its main constraint. Adding the close_capture lifecycle or error conditions would make it fully complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it adds that 'path' points to an allow-listed .rdc file, which is real meaning beyond 'string/Path'. It still gives no format, relative-vs-absolute, or example detail.

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?

Specific verb (open) plus a precise resource ('one allow-listed .rdc file'), and it even names the artifact it produces (capture_id). It does not explicitly contrast with close_capture or the inspection siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite/ordering guidance (e.g., that other capture tools need the returned capture_id, or that close_capture must follow). Usage is only weakly implied by the verb 'open'.

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