stenographer_capture_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Report' implies a read-only status operation, but the description does not explicitly say whether it has side effects, how fresh the status is, or how delivery errors are represented. It adds basic behavioral context but leaves safety and data-source details implicit.

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 terse sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Report') and immediately specifies what is reported, which is ideal for agent scanning.

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?

For a simple no-parameter tool, the description is minimally adequate: it names the output focus (progress and delivery errors). However, with no annotations and no output schema, it does not explain what the returned status looks like, what 'automatic capture' refers to, or when to prefer this over siblings, leaving notable gaps for an agent.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100% vacuously, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 states a specific action ('Report') and a clear resource ('automatic capture progress and delivery errors'), so an agent can tell this is a status/health tool. It is distinguishable from siblings like stenographer_query_history and stenographer_ingest_exchange by its focus on current capture status, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description does not state whether this should be called for current status only, whether it should precede other operations, or when an alternative like query_history would be more appropriate.

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