capture_file

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the file is ingested into an ephemeral search index and that capture limits affect output handling rather than filesystem validation. However, it does not describe permissions behavior, error conditions, or whether the tool follows symlinks without the caller resolving them.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and practical validation guidance in the second paragraph. The wording is slightly dense in places, but every sentence contributes useful information without unnecessary 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?

The output schema exists, so return value details are not required. Still, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description should cover the remaining parameter semantics and alternatives more fully. It is adequate for a simple read-and-ingest tool but has noticeable gaps around content_type and label.

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 gives meaningful guidance for file_path and max_bytes, but label and content_type are left entirely undocumented. Since half the parameters lack semantic explanation, the description only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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+resource: 'Reads a file or log output from disk and ingests it into the ephemeral search index.' This clearly identifies the tool's action, input, and target, and distinguishes it from siblings like capture_text or execute_and_capture by emphasizing disk-sourced content.

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 clear context for when the tool applies (disk files or log output) and includes actionable pre-call guidance about path validation and max_bytes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'use capture_text instead for raw text input,' but the disk-source framing makes the intended usage reasonably clear.

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