capture_get_status

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

The description implies a read operation with no side effects, but it does not elaborate on what 'capture status' entails or whether the tool requires an active capture. Without annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it fails to disclose important behavioral details.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word is necessary and no information is redundant. It is optimally concise.

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 lack of output schema and siblings, the description is minimally complete. It tells what the tool does but does not specify the format or structure of the returned data, which may leave the agent guessing. Additional context about the status object would improve 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description meets that by not omitting any necessary information.

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 that the tool retrieves the current capture status and capture time, which is a specific and actionable purpose. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like capture_get_encodings or capture_get_settings, which could cause confusion about which tool to use for what.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when this tool should be used instead of alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. This leaves the agent without guidance on proper selection.

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