caption

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, idempotency (despite the 'key' parameter), destructive potential, or auth requirements. The phrase 'Build caption imprints' hints at creation but lacks depth on behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Every word contributes meaning, and it efficiently conveys the core purpose without padding.

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 the tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description omits crucial details such as the meaning of 'caption imprints', the behavior of the 'motion' enum, or the format of the result. The agent would lack sufficient context to use the tool confidently.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds modest context by linking 'cut sheet' to the required 'sheet' parameter and 'source's words' to the tool's input, but it does not elaborate on the 'key', 'style', or 'motion' parameters 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 action ('Build') and resource ('caption imprints for a cut sheet from the source's words'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'preview' or 'watch' by focusing on imprint creation rather than viewing. However, the phrase 'caption imprints' is somewhat jargon-heavy and could be more universally understood.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'preview', 'hear', 'draft'). It neither specifies prerequisites nor warns against misuse, leaving the agent without context for choosing 'caption' over siblings.

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