get_capture_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It conveys that the call is non-mutating ('Returns'), that output is a 'compact versioned JSON' format, and that the full output is deliberately excluded — useful behavioral context. It does not disclose error behavior for an unknown capture_id or any rate/availability constraints, though these matter less for a simple read.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the verb-resource purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter guidance plus sibling pointer follow immediately. Every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere and need not be repeated. The main gaps are capture_id, undocumented in both the schema (0% coverage) and the description, and the absence of annotations for safety signals; for a simple two-parameter read tool this is adequate but not thorough.

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 does for include_previews ('head and tail samples') but never mentions capture_id, the parameter that selects which capture is summarized. The meaning of the 'latest' default and the behavior for an invalid id are left entirely to inference from sibling tool names.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair — 'Returns a compact versioned JSON summary' — and differentiates the tool from its sibling get_capture_slice by noting that 'full output remains available' there. It falls short of a 5 because it never states what the summary actually contains (which fields or statistics), leaving the agent to infer scope from the output schema.

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?

It gives concrete selection guidance: enable include_previews 'when head and tail samples are needed' and use get_capture_slice when full output is required. The compact-versus-full contrast makes the decision rule clear, though it stops short of an explicit 'use this when you only need summary statistics' statement.

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