read_capture

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details three modes with token cost implications ('summary' cheap, 'structured' moderate, 'raw' expensive) and advises using raw only when lighter modes are insufficient. This goes beyond a simple read, giving the agent actionable behavioral guidance without contradicting any structured metadata.

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 about five sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides mode details and a workflow. It is efficient and avoids redundancy, though it lacks bullet-point formatting that could improve scannability. No wasted words.

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 tool has a moderate complexity (2 params, 3 modes) and no output schema. The description gives enough context for the agent to understand what to expect from each mode and how to use the tool effectively, covering purpose, mode selection, cost, and workflow. It does not describe error cases or exact return structures, but these are not critical for basic invocation.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra semantics, especially for the mode parameter: it expands on the schema by explaining 'summary' as one paragraph, 'structured' as decisions/loops/warnings, and 'raw' as full transcript excerpt, plus cost guidance. This enriches the schema definitions.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'PreCompact capture by ID', and specifically ties it to recovering context lost during mid-session compaction. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_captures or capture_now by focusing on reading a specific capture.

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 says when to use the tool ('recover context lost during mid-session compaction') and provides a workflow: 'read recovered captures before relying on the latest checkpoint; start with the lightest mode that answers your question.' This gives clear context and usage strategy, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives to other sibling tools.

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