perseus_capture

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

The description states the tool 'WRITES to the vault', which contradicts the readOnlyHint annotation indicating it is read-only. This is a serious inconsistency that undermines transparency. The description also claims idempotence and no caching, but the contradiction dominates.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses clear language and avoids unnecessary words, with each sentence adding value.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, and some behavioral traits, but the annotation contradiction significantly misinforms. There is no output schema, and return values are not described. The tool's complexity is low, but the contradiction reduces completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not provide any additional meaning for the single 'limit' parameter beyond what the schema already states. The schema description is minimal, but the tool description adds no further context.

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 identifies the tool as the write side of the memory loop, specifying it writes session checkpoints to Perseus Vault. It distinguishes itself from the symmetric 'memory recall' tool, providing a clear verb+resource description.

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 advises using the tool at session boundaries for immediate persistence, offering practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives beyond mentioning the symmetric recall tool.

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