get_capsule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds two useful behavioral notes: the tool respects redaction policy, and it returns a bundle of elements (claims, evidence, freshness, consumers). However, it doesn't disclose what happens with the 'detail' parameter (summary vs full), how pagination/limits work, or whether it's a read-only operation. The redaction-policy mention is a notable positive.

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 compact and front-loaded with the action and key deliverable. The content list is slightly verbose (five claim types enumerated) but that enumeration is genuinely useful. No wasted words overall.

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 tool has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations or output schema, yet the description fails to document the 'detail' and 'consumer' parameters. These likely control output verbosity and redaction context respectively—both critically relevant to an agent choosing invocation arguments. The redaction-policy mention signals this but doesn't explain how the agent should set parameters to control it.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters, but it only explains capsule_id implicitly via the subject of the fetch. The 'detail' parameter (default 'summary') and 'consumer' parameter are not described at all—no note on what detail levels exist or what 'consumer' means for redaction/context. This is a gap since the description itself references a redaction policy that is likely tied to the consumer parameter.

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 retrieves a capsule and enumerates its contents (situation, typed claims, evidence references, freshness, consumers). It uses a specific verb-plus-resource pattern ('Fetch a capsule'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like find_related_capsules or compare_capsules, though the detailed content list does implicitly differentiate it.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this fetches a single capsule by ID (which distinguishes get vs find/compare), nor does it warn against using it when a related-capsule or comparison workflow is needed. The context ('Respects the capsule's redaction policy') is informative but not a usage guideline.

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