capture_idea

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses key behaviors: auto-tagging, linking to domains/projects, and auto cross-pollination. However, it omits details on idempotency, potential destructive actions, or permission requirements, which are important for a write operation.

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?

Description is efficient: a few sentences summarizing behavior followed by a clear args list. Front-loaded main purpose. Could be slightly more streamlined, but overall well-structured and without waste.

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 4 parameters (1 required), no annotations, and a write operation, the description covers primary behaviors but lacks error handling, return value details (though output schema exists), and prerequisites. It is adequate for basic use but not comprehensive.

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 add meaning. It provides minimal explanations for each parameter (content, source, image_path, auto_cross_pollinate) but lacks depth (e.g., valid values for source, path format). This partially compensates but is insufficient for low-coverage scenario.

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 stores an idea in the SQLite ideas table, using specific verb ('Store') and resource ('idea in SQLite ideas table'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_ideas' (retrieval) and 'capture_observation' (different domain).

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 explains default behavior (auto-cross-pollinate) and the effect of setting auto_cross_pollinate=False. It gives context on when extra connections are provided, but does not explicitly tell when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'capture_observation' or when not to use it.

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