emacs_org_capture

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. org-capture is behaviorally distinctive: it depends on pre-configured capture templates in the user's Emacs configuration, typically appends to a target file defined by the template, and can open an interactive capture buffer requiring user action to finalize. The description discloses none of this, stating only that it 'create[s]' an entry.

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 nine-word sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource and includes the distinguishing mechanism. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 has moderate behavioral complexity (org-capture semantics and configuration dependencies), with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must carry substantial weight. It is missing success behavior, prerequisites (templates must be configured), where the entry is written, and how this tool relates to sibling org tools. A single sentence is not enough for an agent to invoke this correctly and predict the outcome.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents all three parameters, including an example for template ('t' for todo, 'n' for note). The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema — it reinforces that capture templates are involved but does not clarify how title/content interact with a template or whether they are optional.

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 'Create a new org entry using capture templates' names a specific verb (Create), a specific resource (org entry), and a specific mechanism (capture templates). It is clear and meaningful to anyone familiar with Emacs org-mode, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like emacs_org_write or emacs_org_heading_add, which also create org 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the description whether to choose emacs_org_capture, emacs_org_write, or emacs_org_heading_add for a given request. The phrase 'capture templates' weakly implies the use case, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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