ora_auto_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 reveals that the tool dispatches automatically based on type, but lacks details on error handling, output, required permissions, or side effects. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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?

Two concise sentences in French that are front-loaded with the core concept. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy or verbosity.

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 a capture/dispatch utility. The description covers its purpose and usage context. Without an output schema, it could mention what happens after dispatch (e.g., confirmation or return value) but overall it is sufficiently complete for its complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters well. The description does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the concept of type-based dispatch. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 performs intelligent multi-type capture and automatically dispatches to note, decision, or component based on type. It distinguishes itself from sibling capture tools by emphasizing automatic routing, allowing users to capture without manually choosing a specific tool.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'utilise pour capturer rapidement un element sans choisir manuellement l'outil'. It implies that for manual selection of a specific capture type, sibling tools should be used, though no explicit alternatives or when-not guidance is provided.

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