capture_situation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the transformation shape (raw → structured) but says nothing about persistence, side effects, permissions, or whether anything is stored — an agent cannot tell if this is a read-only parse or a write.

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?

A single dense sentence using an explicit arrow from input to output, front-loaded with the core action. The arrow notation is compact and readable; nothing is redundant.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description must cover behavior, and it only sketches the transformed result. It omits side effects, storage, and failure modes, leaving real gaps for a tool that appears to feed a larger decision workflow.

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% and the single parameter is documented only as a string. The description compensates partially by defining what the text should contain ('сырой дамп: чат-лог конфликта/описание решения'), but never names the 'text' field or gives format/length guidance.

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 states a specific verb and transformation: 'Захват контекста' turns a raw dump (conflict chat log / decision description) into a structure of actors, utterances, and explicit questions. That is a concrete input→output contract rather than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like situation_analyze or situation_stress_test, so it stops short of 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?

Usage is only implied by 'Вход для карты и рейм-чека' — it tells the agent this is a preprocessing step feeding the decision map and frame-check. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative among the many situation_* and decision_* siblings.

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