capture_input

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose side effects and expectations. It only says 'Save' without explaining write privileges, overwrite behavior, filing conventions, or response format. The saved note's storage details are entirely omitted, leaving an agent unaware of potential errors or constraints beyond the schema.

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 concise sentence, front-loading the primary action. It avoids redundancy and is easy to scan. It loses a point for omitting any structural hints about optional fields or examples that would aid comprehension.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain the purpose of filename keyword constraints, source handling, tag limits, or how the note is persisted. An agent would need additional information to correctly invoke all parameters.

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 adds no parameter-specific guidance. Schema coverage is 50% (only date, content, keyword have descriptions), and the tool description fails to clarify the roles of title, source, or tags, or to supplement what the schema does provide. The phrase 'Markdown note' hints at content, but not enough to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 a specific verb ('Save'), a resource ('external input'), and the output format ('Markdown note'). It lists example inputs (article, book, podcast) making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling 'capture_journal', so it loses some differentiation credit.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention capture_journal or any conditions for selecting this over other capture/search tools. An agent would not know whether this is appropriate for a specific scenario without further inference.

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