ora_capture_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It merely states the saving action without any disclosure of side effects, such as whether existing files are overwritten, required permissions, or any other behavioral traits like idempotency. The lack of detail leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's behavior beyond the basic operation.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the core purpose and provides a usage example. Every word earns its place.

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 tool has 6 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or how the saved file is stored (e.g., in a repository). An agent would lack sufficient context to use the tool correctly without additional knowledge.

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 schema descriptions cover 67% of parameters (4 out of 6), but the tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain the role of parameters like 'tags' or 'project_path' nor does it provide usage context for 'file_type' enum values. With moderate schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 action ('Sauvegarde un fichier template/config') and the resource ('fichier template/config'). It also provides the trigger command '/ora fichier :: [nom]', which directly distinguishes it from sibling capture tools like ora_capture_note (notes), ora_capture_decision (decisions), etc. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 states when this tool is used: when the user writes '/ora fichier :: [nom]'. This provides clear context but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternative tools. However, given the command-based trigger, the usage is well-defined.

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