delimit_soul_capture

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that it auto-detects git state and files changed, which is key behavior. It could mention more about side effects (e.g., overwriting previous souls), but the current detail is good.

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 sentences with a third adding an extra behavior. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place. No waste.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It fully explains the tool's function (capture session state for resurrection) and mentions auto-detection. No gaps for a save 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema parameter descriptions, which already explain each field. It adds the 'one line' note for active_task, but that is minor.

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's purpose: capturing current session state as a 'soul' for cross-model resurrection. It uses specific verbs ('capture', 'save') and distinguishes itself from many sibling tools by the unique concept of 'soul capture'.

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: when you want to persist session state to resume later. It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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