capture_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains that the crawler captures passively during manual posting on facebook.com and that resnapshot is only needed when Facebook rotates payloads. This gives valuable behavioral context beyond a simple status read.

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, front-loads key information (status of templates, readiness, actions), and contains no filler. Every sentence 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 no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool provides (templates captured, readiness, instructions). It could optionally mention return format or error states, but the description is sufficient for a simple status tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns and the underlying mechanism, which is more than the empty schema provides. This is appropriate for a parameterless 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 clearly states that the tool provides crawler/snapshot status, listing specific details like which templates are captured, readiness to post, and instructions for resnapshot. It distinguishes from sibling tools (which are action-oriented like post_photos or switch_profile) by focusing on status.

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 implies when to use this tool (e.g., before posting to check readiness) but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or when not to use it. No comparative guidance is given.

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