memory.capture_commit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the result may be 'no_memory', that it passes through admission gates, and that dry_run only shows proposals. It also clarifies the hook should not block commits. This is good behavioral context for a tool with 20 parameters.

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 relatively concise at 4 sentences, covering purpose, usage timing, and behavioral notes. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) for clarity, but overall 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 complexity (20 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description lacks parameter explanations and return value details. It provides essential behavioral context but misses details about how parameters interact or what the output contains, making it only partially complete for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it does not explain any of the 20 parameters, leaving the agent to infer from names alone. The baseline for 0% coverage is low, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning, so a 3 is generous given the high parameter count.

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 uses a specific verb 'Verifica' (verifies) and identifies the resource as 'memória durável a partir da sessão e do commit/PR atual'. It distinguishes from siblings like memory.get or memory.query by clarifying it captures memory after a commit/PR, focusing on session context. However, it could be more explicit about the output format.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'depois de concluir um commit ou PR quando houver contexto da sessão para explicar intenção e impacto'. It also mentions that returning 'no_memory' is correct and not to block commits, which provides clear usage boundaries. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives among siblings.

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