capture

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses blocking behavior, the configure/start/export/parse sequence, the 'leave None to keep current settings' behavior, and the return of export plus parsed capture summaries. This is strong, though it stops short of error behavior or device-side side effects.

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?

Three sentences front-load the workflow and include the most important usage rules and return behavior. There is no filler, repetition, or 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 description covers the default invocation path well: workflow, blocking, parameter defaults, and return summaries. However, with six undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, it leaves channels, filename, simulate, and depth/time precedence under-specified, so it is not fully complete.

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%, and the description only addresses rate/depth/time, mentioning that None preserves current settings and time_s is an alternative to depth. The channels, filename, and simulate parameters receive no semantic guidance, leaving significant gaps for a six-parameter tool.

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 composite workflow: 'configure -> start (blocking) -> export kvdat -> parse npz' and the use case 'grabbing data for offline analysis'. It clearly distinguishes itself from lower-level siblings like start, export_data, and parse_file by being the one-shot convenience wrapper.

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 'one-shot' and 'convenient single call' framing clearly indicates when to use this tool instead of manually chaining lower-level operations. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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