Track a path before changing it

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

With no annotations, the description fully conveys core behavioral traits: it captures state for reversibility, recursively handles directories, and refuses out-of-project paths. It does not disclose potential side effects like storage or latency, but covers the essential operational details.

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 very concise (4 sentences) with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: purpose, why, when, constraints. No wasted words.

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?

Given 2 parameters, no output schema, and 16 siblings, the description adequately explains usage and constraints. It lacks details on return value or error handling, but for a simple tool it is reasonably 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra context for paths (recursive capture, path refusal) and cwd (defaults to server directory), which goes beyond the schema descriptions. This aids correct usage.

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 captures file/directory state before changes, using specific verbs ('Capture', 'BEFORE') and explicitly distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing it's for tracking before modification. It identifies the resource and the context of use.

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?

Provides clear guidance: 'Call it on every path you're about to touch.' and explains the purpose ('makes the change reversible'). It also mentions directories are recursive and paths outside project are refused. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like walkback_checkpoint or walkback_compensate, nor does it state when not to use.

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