capture_thought

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior: content lands in raw/thoughts/ and is wrapped with frontmatter and tags. However, it says nothing about overwrite/duplicate handling, whether a new file is always created, or what source/domain affect.

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 tight sentence with the key destination front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the coverage gaps noted elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but with zero schema coverage and no annotations the description should clarify the required source and optional domain parameters. It leaves an agent guessing about the most important invocation details.

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 description names none of the three parameters (text, source, domain). 'frontmatter and tags' alludes to metadata handling but does not explain what source or domain mean or how tags are derived, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 (capture) and resource (raw thought) plus the destination path raw/thoughts/, which implicitly separates it from write_note's general note writing. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast with write_note, so it stops 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 guidance on when to use this versus write_note, which is the obvious alternative for persisting text in the vault. The destination folder hints at a 'quick capture' workflow but no condition, prerequisite, or exclusion is stated.

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