brain_capture

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes full responsibility for behavior. It discloses the internal workflow (reads SCHEMA.md, searches, decides), safety guarantees (reads before overwriting, never deletes), and returns a manifest of touched paths. This is thorough and clear.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action, the second details the process and safety, and the third gives usage guidance. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite having only one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: how it decides, what it returns, its safety behavior, and when to use it. The description compensates for all missing structured metadata.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter with a description ('the rough note / brain dump to file'). The description adds no new semantic details about the parameter beyond restating the same idea, so the baseline score of 3 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?

The description states a clear purpose: hand over a rough note and the tool files it, deciding between creating new, appending, or archiving. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly comparing with brain_write, making the tool's unique role clear.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: use when you have unstructured input and don't want to choose the path yourself, use brain_write when you do. This directly tells the agent when to choose this tool over an alternative.

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