Peek at a capture

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

The description goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by explaining behavior such as range clamping, default return of whole content when no range is specified, and grep with context lines. These details are valuable for understanding side-effect-free behavior.

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 moderately concise but contains poetic redundancies like 'open up a gap that a view left behind' and 'the way into a gap when you know the word you want'. These add style but not substance, making it less crisp than necessary.

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?

The description covers core behaviors and parameter basics, but the unexplained 'cap' parameter leaves a gap in the overall picture. Since no output schema is provided, the description is the only source of information about what the tool returns, and it is mostly sufficient but not fully complete.

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 description explains handle, range (first/last), around (context), and grep. However, the 'cap' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving its purpose ambiguous. Schema description coverage is 0%, so this omission is meaningful.

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 states the tool returns exact original lines of a capture or file with line numbers, which is a specific and distinct purpose. However, the flowery phrasing ('open up a gap that a view left behind') slightly obscures the directness.

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?

It provides some usage context (use with handle from run result or any path) but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like outline or digest. The guidance is implied rather than explicit about when to prefer this tool over others.

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