capture_request_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what data is captured but doesn't describe how the data is returned (e.g., format, structure), whether it's read-only or modifies state, potential side effects, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with session and request data.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence directly contributes to understanding what the tool does, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity of capturing HTTP request data and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, how session_id relates to the capture, or behavioral aspects like permissions or data sensitivity. For a tool with no structured support, more detail is needed to be fully helpful.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage ('Session ID'), and the tool description adds no additional parameter information. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3. The description doesn't compensate or provide extra context about the parameter's role in capturing request context.

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 action ('capture') and the resource ('current HTTP request context'), specifying exactly what data is collected ($_GET, $_POST, $_SESSION, $_COOKIE, headers). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on HTTP request data rather than debugging operations like breakpoints or variable inspection, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active session), exclusions, or related tools like 'get_contexts' or 'capture_snapshot' that might overlap in functionality. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and description.

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