capture_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that values are dynamic, that it is used for storing resource IDs, and that the cache works across auth tokens. However, it does not disclose persistence semantics (memory vs. disk), expiration, overwrite behavior, or any security implications. The cross-token hint adds context but is not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, concise, and front-loaded with the primary action. Every word adds value: the verb, the object, and the usage context. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core functionality and the critical usage scenario. It mentions the cross-auth-token behavior, which is significant. The main gap is that it doesn't mention edge cases like overwriting an existing key or cache scoping, but the output schema likely handles return values. Overall, it is reasonably complete for its complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by explaining that the value is a dynamic value often a resource ID, but it does not elaborate on the 'key' parameter's semantics, such as naming conventions or uniqueness constraints. Without explicit parameter-level guidance, the agent is left to infer from generic key-value patterns.

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 action ('Stores a dynamic value in the session cache') and specifies the exact use case (after POST/PUT responses to save resource IDs). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_context, list_context, and clear_context because it focuses on storing, not retrieving or clearing.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: after POST/PUT responses and for later use in DELETE/GET requests. It also adds a valuable context note about using a different auth token. However, it does not mention situations where it should not be used or explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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