Inspect capture metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral details: it explicitly states that environment values are never returned and that the operation does not replay the frame. These disclosures go beyond the annotations and clarify side-effect boundaries.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose and includes crucial caveats. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundant or extraneous information.

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 read-only inspection tool with 2 parameters, good annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what is read, the non-replay guarantee, and the environment value restriction. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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 already documents both parameters thoroughly (capture_path and include_environment_names with descriptions). The description's note about environment values reflects the same constraint already present in the schema, adding no new parameter-level meaning. With 100% schema coverage, a 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 clearly identifies the tool as reading capture metadata (identity, application/GPU/API/version, portability flags, replay incompatibilities) and explicitly distinguishes it from replaying or analyzing the frame. This is a specific verb+resource statement that contextualizes the tool's purpose among siblings like analyze_capture.

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 phrase 'without replaying the frame' implies a usage context, suggesting it is appropriate for lightweight inspection before or instead of full replay/analysis. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusion scenarios, so it stops short of full guidance.

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