datacore_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 implies a write operation ('capture', 'record') but does not explain side effects, persistence, permissions, or return values. The agent is left guessing what happens after the capture and whether it has any irreversible 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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every word adds value; there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the 'what' and 'when' but not the 'how' behaviorally. It doesn't mention what happens after capture (e.g., storage, retrieval via search), error conditions, or idempotency. It's adequate but leaves gaps in understanding the full workflow.

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 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema, only reinforcing the type distinction via 'journal entry or knowledge note'. It doesn't explain nuanced parameter usage (e.g., when title is required, how tags are used) beyond what the schema already provides.

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 journal entry or knowledge note, giving a specific verb and resource. It also provides examples of when to use it (decisions, meetings, events), which helps differentiate from sibling tools like search and status, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with datacore_ingest.

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 gives clear proactive usage context: 'Call proactively to record important decisions, meeting outcomes, and significant events.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for typical use cases.

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