strategy_capture

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false; the description adds that storage is 'bounded' and 'transient' and lives in page-memory, which is genuine value beyond the annotations. It does not explain what a probe/reference resembles, error behavior, or what 'freshness checks' do with the stored reference. Minor tension between 'stores' and readOnlyHint=true, but the storage is internal caching rather than a data mutation.

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?

One compact sentence with zero filler, front-loaded on the verb. The density of undefined jargon slightly hurts readability, but nothing is wasted.

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?

A tool with 3 params, a required undocumented entity_id, no output schema, and no explanation of return values or what a 'report probe' contains. Given the terminology-heavy subject, the description should say more about what is captured and how it is later consumed.

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 67%, with target_id and expected_layout_id described in-schema, but the required entity_id carries no description anywhere. The description contributes nothing about any parameter, leaving the single required field completely opaque.

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?

States the verb 'Capture' and a nominal resource 'report probe', but 'pre-mutation report probe' and 'bounded transient page-memory report references' are opaque jargon. The agent can tell it relates to report freshness, but cannot confidently distinguish it from strategy_get_report or strategy_scan without inspecting other schemas.

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?

'Pre-mutation' and 'for subsequent freshness checks' imply a usage window (before changes are applied), which is useful implied context. However, it never names an alternative or any exclusion, so the agent must infer when this is preferred over strategy_get_report or strategy_status.

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