quick_capture

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

The description discloses the key behavior of appending to a file and adding a timestamp, which is valuable given there are no annotations. However, it does not mention potential side effects such as whether the file is created if missing, overwriting risks, or permission requirements. For a write operation, more transparency would be helpful.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action and quickly covers the use case. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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 is simple and the schema fully documents parameters, but the description lacks information about return values, behavior when the capture file is missing, or error scenarios. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, a more complete description would add operational details.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, including defaults and enums. The description adds only a passing mention of the capture file and timestamp, which mirrors the schema. Thus, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 captures a thought, idea, or note and appends to a designated capture file with a timestamp, which specifies both the action and resource. It implies an inbox-style use case but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like append_to_note or create_note.

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 phrase 'Great for inbox-style note capture' provides implied context for when to use this tool, but there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use rules or mentions of alternatives. It lacks guidance on choosing this over similar append/create tools.

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