capture_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that – no note on truncation when max_bytes clips content, no indication of what a capture contains or how large reads behave.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, and the range hint is placed immediately after. No wasted words, though it is arguably terse enough that the range list omits the schema's 'relevant:' mode.

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 read-only tool with 100% schema coverage and full annotations, the definition is minimally adequate. It never explains what a capture is, how it relates to the capture_search/capture_list siblings, or that max_bytes may truncate the returned content.

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 100%, so the schema already documents id, range (including the 'relevant:<question>' mode), and max_bytes in more detail than the description. The description's range list is a partial restatement rather than added meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Read) and resource (a capture), and the parenthetical previews the range modes. It does not differentiate itself from the other capture_* siblings (capture_search, capture_list, capture_aggregate), but the purpose itself 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus capture_search or capture_list, or versus read_lines/get_function_source for reading content. The agent must infer that 'id from search/list' means capture_get is the follow-up fetch step, but nothing states this explicitly.

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