auto-capture-review

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

It discloses a meaningful behavioral trait: the tool proposes content and waits for user confirmation, so it is not a silent write. This goes beyond the annotations' base safety hints, though it does not explain behavior on unsupported hosts or the legacy no-op action values in detail.

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 entire description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core action, the confirmation behavior, and the prerequisite in an economical way.

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 simple tool with three parameters, good schema coverage, and a non-destructive annotation, this description covers the essential use case. It could also explain the legacy action no-ops and unsupported-host behavior more explicitly, but the current level is enough for safe selection and invocation.

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 100%, so the parameters are already described in the input schema. The description only loosely maps 'knowledge' to the title/content parameters and does not add extra guidance on formatting or the meaning of different action values.

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 names a specific action—proposing knowledge for user confirmation—rather than being a tautology. It also distinguishes the tool from direct storage tools like 'learn' by emphasizing the user-confirmation step, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

It clearly states the enabling condition: 'when the host supports elicitation.' This provides a clear context for use, but it does not say what to use instead when that condition is false or how to choose among the legacy no-op actions.

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