feedback.capture_intake

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a recording action but does not state side effects, whether it modifies state, requires specific permissions, or how it interacts with existing baselines. The terms 'fixed-frame ortho alpha silhouettes' hint at capture specifics but lack clarity on execution impact.

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 that efficiently communicates the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the primary action ('Record the do-no-harm baseline'). However, the dense jargon ('fixed-frame ortho alpha silhouettes') reduces clarity for general use.

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?

Despite the simple schema (1 optional param, no output), the description omits crucial context: parameter role, return value, side effects, and relationship to sibling tools. The tool appears important for state preservation, but the description leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 input schema has one optional parameter ('object') with 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, failing to add meaning to what 'object' does. The agent cannot infer how the parameter influences the baseline recording.

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 the tool records a 'do-no-harm baseline' and specifies the components: fixed-frame ortho alpha silhouettes, bbox, and a session checkpoint. This gives a specific action and resource, but the jargon may be unclear to new users. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like feedback.capture or feedback.silhouette, but the specificity implies a distinct purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as feedback.capture, feedback.silhouette, or session.checkpoint. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent without decision support.

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