List capture resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying that results are 'captured object identities' (not full captures) and that filtering can be done by substrings and access-flag presence. No contradictions with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that packs the action (page through), the resource (captured object identities), and all key filter axes. No filler, redundancy, or repetition of schema details.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation, the description covers the main filtering capabilities but omits return format, pagination behavior (beyond implying paging), and possible error conditions. Annotations cover safety, but the tool's output structure is undocumented, which is a notable gap for users.

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 only 11% (only capture_path is described). The description compensates by naming six filter dimensions (UID, API, type, object-name substring, creator-function substring, nonzero access flags) that map to uid, api, type_name, name_contains, creator_contains, and accessed_only. However, it leaves pagination parameters (limit, offset) and their semantics implicit, and does not clarify exact parameter meanings beyond the names.

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 uses a specific verb ('Page through') and resource ('captured object identities'), and enumerates filter dimensions (UID, API, type, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling listing tools like list_capture_events or list_gpu_trace_reports, which target different resource types.

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 description implies usage for browsing/filtering capture resources but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not mention when not to use this tool, nor does it reference sibling tools. The context is clear but exclusions are absent, so 'implied usage' is the best fit.

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