raggy_capture

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Auto-capture' which implies persistence, and it requires source_app and capture_context fields, but it does not disclose side effects such as whether a memory ID is returned, how duplicates are handled, whether anything is overwritten, or any authentication/rate-limit considerations.

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 dense but efficient, packing the core purpose, content-type guidance, importance rules, and field requirements into three sentences. It is front-loaded with the main action. It could be improved with structured bullets or clearer separation of topics, but it remains appropriately concise for a 10-parameter tool.

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 many use cases but leaves gaps for the enum values bookmark, conversation, todo, and reference, and does not address the low and critical importance values. It also references a non-existent capture_context.agent_id field and does not explain return values, making it incomplete for an agent attempting to use the tool confidently on less-common content types.

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 fully documents all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful mapping for content_type and importance, but it also instructs 'capture_context.agent_id' even though the schema for capture_context contains only file, branch, project, and technology. This makes the parameter guidance partially misleading and prevents a higher score.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Auto-capture structured memory.' It then enumerates concrete content types (decision, error, insight, snippet, research) with their corresponding content_type values, making it easy for an agent to understand exactly what this tool ingests and how it differs from retrieval-focused siblings like recall, timeline, and thread.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance by mapping use cases to content_type values and importance levels. It lacks when-not-to-use instructions and does not mention alternatives like raggy_remember or raggy_recall, so it misses the full 'do not use' side of usage guidance.

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