get_capture

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses important behavioral traits: the response includes full history with provenance and confidence, and it explicitly states the tool never serves bytes, pointing to documents_get_content for that. This gives the agent a clear understanding of what the tool returns and its limitation, which is valuable context not captured by annotations alone.

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 two sentences, efficiently front-loaded with the core function and includes the key behavioral caveat (no bytes) and a pointer to the alternative. Every sentence adds value, with 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 the tool has no output schema, the description provides a good overview of the response content (all fields, history, provenance, confidence, E00 document reference) and points to documents_get_content for the original bytes. It covers the essential aspects an agent needs to understand what the tool returns and how to use it, though it could be more explicit about the exact structure of the capture object.

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 provides two required parameters (workspaceId, captureId) with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description does not elaborate on these parameters, leaving their meaning and format ambiguous. While captureId is implied by the tool's purpose, workspaceId is not explained, and the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, making it difficult for an agent to know how to properly populate them.

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 a single capture with all its fields including live and superseded history, each with provenance and confidence. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like capture_document, capture_extract, capture_commit, and capture_discard by focusing on retrieval, and it also differentiates from documents_get_content by noting that A31 never serves bytes itself.

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 implies usage: to retrieve a specific capture by ID (captureId) within a workspace (workspaceId). It also provides a critical alternative: to fetch the actual document bytes, use documents_get_content, since this tool does not serve bytes. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus list_captures or other retrieval tools, leaving some inference to the agent.

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