List the captures on disk

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations: it discloses that output is names, not paths, and explains why paths are intentionally avoided. The ordering behavior ('newest last') is also stated directly.

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 extremely concise: one sentence states the core behavior and ordering, and a second explains the names-not-paths design decision. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a no-argument list tool, the description is complete: it specifies what is returned, the ordering, and how the returned names relate to read_capture. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to describe return values in prose.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds no irrelevant parameter information.

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 states a specific action and scope: listing every capture in the save directory, ordered newest last. It also distinguishes the tool from read_capture by explicitly saying it returns names, not paths.

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 clear context: the tool exists to provide capture names, and read_capture deliberately accepts only a name, so captures is the natural source for those names. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it, but the purpose is obvious enough that no exclusion is necessary.

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