get_capture_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It says it returns diagnostics and includes error signals, which is useful, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, failure modes, or what happens when a capture does not exist. The 'get' naming implies non-mutating, but that is not explicit.

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, focused sentence front-loads the purpose and then lists the returned diagnostic components. Every phrase adds meaning and there is no filler or redundant restatement.

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 tool is simple, has one optional parameter, and an output schema exists, so return-value detail is covered elsewhere. However, the description lacks usage-selection guidance and capture_id semantics, making the definition only partially complete for an agent deciding when and how to invoke it.

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% and the description never mentions capture_id. The schema alone provides the parameter name and a default of 'latest,' but the description does not compensate by explaining how to specify a capture or what values are accepted, leaving the agent to work out selection semantics.

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 and resource: 'Returns quick diagnostics for a capture,' then lists concrete outputs (total lines, byte size, diff file map or error signals, previews). This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like get_capture_slice or list_captures.

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 phrase 'quick diagnostics' implies this is for fast overview/health checks rather than deep retrieval, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The agent is left to infer selection from the name and sibling list.

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