measure_open_capture

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full load. It discloses the return fields (summary, depth_size, source=lidar, accuracy, valid_fraction, depth_range_m, intrinsics), which tells the agent what the operation yields. However it omits mutation/read-only framing, error behavior for an invalid path, and any permission or size constraints, leaving real gaps.

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 file inventory, then the pipeline instruction. The field list is dense but each item is informative; nothing reads as 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?

An output schema exists, so detailed return-value documentation is technically not required, yet the description still front-loads the key outputs. Combined with the downstream-tool instruction, an agent has enough to call this correctly as the pipeline opener.

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 coverage is 0% and there is one param, but the description adds meaning beyond the bare 'path' string: the bundle may be 'a folder or .zip' and the same path is reused by downstream measurement tools. That clarifies accepted input forms and lifecycle usage, which the schema does not.

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+resource: 'Describe a capture bundle from the measure-mcp iOS app (a folder or .zip)', and enumerates the bundle contents (depth.tiff, confidence, colour image, capture.json). It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like measure_depth_info or measure_find_files, but the workflow framing implies it's the entry-point tool.

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?

Gives clear contextual routing: 'Pass the same path to kitchen_measure_vessel, measure_object, measure_distance_between_points to measure.' This positions it as the first step of a measurement pipeline. No explicit when-not-to-use or comparison against measure_depth_info/measure_find_files, so it stops short of a 5.

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