feedback-capture_intake

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains what is recorded (silhouettes, bbox, checkpoint) but does not mention side effects, persistence, whether it overwrites data, or any safety implications. The term 'record' is ambiguous—does it save to disk, memory, or just report? This lack of clarity on effects is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence, tightly packed with technical specifics. It front-loads the purpose and avoids redundancy. Every phrase earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the tool has one optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain when to use this tool, what happens when invoked, how the checkpoint is used, or how it relates to the broader feedback tool family. The description leaves the agent guessing about workflow integration and side effects.

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 description does not mention the single parameter 'object' at all. The schema provides only a title ('Mesh object to baseline (defaults to active)') and zero description coverage. The tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema field title, leaving the agent without any guidance on how to set the parameter or its role in the baseline capture.

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?

The description clearly states it records a baseline of silhouettes, bounding box, and a session checkpoint, using specific technical terms. This distinguishes it somewhat from generic capture tools, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like 'feedback-capture' or 'feedback-silhouette', so not 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?

The description implies usage for establishing a 'do-no-harm baseline' before modifications, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It lacks direction on when to choose this over other feedback-capture variants, and there is no mention of prerequisites or context.

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