aegis_capture_insight

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (write, non-idempotent, non-destructive), while the description supplies real lifecycle semantics: the record starts unconfirmed, never counts toward proposals or debits, is invisible to aegis_scan, and only upgrades to 'W2' when the quote matches a hook-captured prompt in the same session. That is substantial post-write behavior disclosure, though the undefined 'W2' term and the absence of any return/error behavior keep it short of a 5.

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 dense sentences with the core action front-loaded and the state-transition rules packed into the second. Efficient, but the second sentence is jargon-heavy and slightly overloaded for the value it conveys.

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 two-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers what the call does and what happens to the record afterward, which is the critical context. Missing are the return value and any failure/validation behavior, but annotations plus schema carry the rest.

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 both 'quote' and 'paths' are already documented in the schema, and the description adds only the notion that the quote is a user correction. It offers no extra guidance on the optional 'paths' scoping behavior, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('a user correction as an unconfirmed suggestion in user scope'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the aegis_scan sibling by noting suggestions 'never appear in aegis_scan'. The core action is unambiguous, though the domain jargon (W2, proposals, debits) is left undefined.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent must infer it should call this when the user issues a correction that should be captured but not yet counted. It clarifies one exclusion relative to aegis_scan, but never names when to prefer this over aegis_create_rule or aegis_report_outcome, nor what conditions make a suggestion appropriate.

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