capture_clarity_snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully discloses key behaviors: fixed numOfDays=1, output file path and naming with UTC date, overwrite semantics, daily request consumption, and manual trigger requirement. This goes well beyond a simple verb+object description and provides the agent with complete operational context.

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 concise but information-dense, covering purpose, file path, trigger, cost, and safety in two sentences. Every sentence contributes operational context with no filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, this description is remarkably complete: it states the exact file output, preservation rationale, manual trigger, API usage cost, and idempotent re-run behavior. The only potential gap is the lack of an explicit return value, but given no output schema and the nature of a file-writing tool, it is sufficient.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty (100% coverage). The description explains the fixed configuration (numOfDays=1, URL breakdown) and output side effects, which adds context beyond the empty schema. With no parameters to document, the description meets the baseline and provides no unnecessary 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?

Clearly states it captures today's Clarity insights and saves to a local file, with the purpose of enabling future historical retrieval. Distinguishes itself from siblings by describing its snapshot/preservation role versus live/current retrieval.

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?

Explicitly states this must be triggered manually with no background schedule, telling the agent when to run it. Also clarifies it uses 1 of 10 daily API requests and is safe to re-run (overwrites rather than errors). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives for current data access or provide 'when not to use' scenarios.

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