capture

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: each item gets its own file with auto-numbering, and any content type is supported. It does not detail what might be destroyed, but the annotation covers the destructive nature, and the file-creation behavior is useful context.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and every phrase earns its place. No redundant or vague wording.

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 tool with full schema descriptions and an output-free schema, the description covers the main purpose, behavior, and content type flexibility. Minor gaps like project parameter behavior or failure handling are not critical given the schema details, but the description is not exhaustive.

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 already has 100% description coverage for both parameters. The description merely restates the type examples already present in the schema ('learning, decision, adr, prd, research') and adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb ('batch-capture') and resource ('insights from a conversation into individual vault items'), with clear scope (auto-numbering files, multiple content types). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'write' or 'learn' by emphasizing batch and multi-type support.

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 implies usage when capturing multiple insights from a conversation, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like 'write' or 'learn', nor does it provide exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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