Instrument Capture

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It does communicate that the capture is blocking and writes into the session, and it notes a backend-specific exception for sample_rate_hz. However, it does not disclose effects on existing session state, required instrument state, or timeout/failure behavior, leaving significant behavioral uncertainty.

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 economically worded and front-loaded with the primary action. No filler exists, and the dsview note is relevant. However, for a 9-parameter tool this brevity crosses from concise to underspecified.

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?

With 9 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient; it does not outline the capture workflow, prerequisites, or how parameters combine. It mentions blocking and session but not how the result is stored or returned. The output schema exists but does not cover this workflow context.

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 0% while there are 9 parameters; the description only adds semantic value for sample_rate_hz via the dsview note. Other parameters like extra are completely unexplained, and the description does not clarify how duration_s, timeout_s, and sample_count interact. Param names are self-descriptive but this does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and object ('blocking capture') and states the destination ('session'), making the tool's core function clear. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the blocking qualifier and session target help disambiguate from instrument_start or instrument_wait. It lacks direct sibling differentiation, so not a 5.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It does not mention that the instrument must be opened or configured first, nor when one would prefer instrument_start/instrument_wait over this single blocking call. The only usage-adjacent note concerns sample_rate_hz for dsview, which is a parameter constraint, not tool-selection guidance.

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