capture_profile

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: that the result is only a summary plus a file path rather than the full symbol list, which prevents the agent from expecting the captured data inline. It omits where the file lands and whether an existing profile is overwritten.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and payload, then the storage format, then the return shape. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the most agent-critical fact (result is a summary plus path) is not buried.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by describing the result payload. Remaining gaps are minor but real: file location, overwrite semantics, and any requirement that a terminal/broker session be active first.

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 there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not invent arguments and instead spends its words on behavior and output.

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 concrete verb and resource: writes a JSON profile of the active broker, and enumerates the payload (clock, account mode, every symbol, full symbol_info plus weekday sessions). This clearly distinguishes it from read-side siblings like read_profile, list_profiles and compare_profiles, though it never names them explicitly.

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 word 'Write' plus 'the active broker' implicitly scope usage to persisting a snapshot of the currently connected broker, which is enough to pick it over read_profile/list_profiles. It stops short of stating when it should be used (e.g. before a config change) or any prerequisites such as an active connection.

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