conduyt_reply_capture_get

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers unusually rich state semantics: health='checking' still means active, degraded means replies are lost and re-setup is required, needsSupport requires operator reconciliation, cleanupPending requires re-invoking remove, and post-removal draining/parked states with permanence of the name. It never explicitly states that this is a read-only, side-effect-free call, which is the one notable gap for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and then a dense but ordered sequence of flag definitions. It is a single long paragraph with many clauses, and bullet-style separation of the state flags would improve scannability, but every sentence carries operational meaning and little is filler.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and no parameters, the description has to convey the entire return-value vocabulary, and it does so field by field (configured, health, healthWarning, degraded, needsSupport, cleanupPending, draining/drainEndsAt, parked, suggestedDomain). Only the read-only/no-side-effect guarantee and auth expectations are missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so schema semantics contribute nothing and the baseline is 4. The description also does not waste space restating inputs, which is appropriate.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the account's reply-capture state', then enumerates exactly what comes back (configured/live status, capture domain, reply address, DNS records, provider health). It sits distinctly apart from the sibling conduyt_reply_capture_setup/verify/remove, and even names conduyt_reply_capture_remove for the cleanup case, though the differentiation of setup vs verify vs get is left implicit.

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 only implied — the tool is a status reader that also tells you which other tool to call (conduyt_reply_capture_remove for cleanupPending). It never states the when-to-use conditions, e.g. 'call this before setup to check DNS' or 'call after verify to confirm live status', so an agent must infer the ordering relative to the sibling setup/verify tools.

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