capture_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the 'Requires Memory plan' requirement, which is useful context about access control. However, it doesn't describe other important behaviors such as whether this is a write operation (implied by 'capture' but not explicit), what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or how the data is stored/retrieved, leaving significant gaps for a tool that persists data.

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 with zero waste: the first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds crucial context about what to store and a prerequisite. It's front-loaded with the core action and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete: it covers the purpose and a key requirement ('Memory plan'). However, for a write tool with 5 parameters, it lacks details on behavioral outcomes (e.g., success response, error handling) and doesn't leverage the rich schema to explain usage nuances, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain format constraints for 'summary' or examples for 'tool'). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with extra semantic value.

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 verb ('capture') and resource ('AI session summary into persistent memory'), specifying what gets stored ('what you learned, decided, or built during this session'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_knowledge' or 'recall_memory' by focusing specifically on session summaries rather than general knowledge or retrieval.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Capture an AI session summary... Store what you learned, decided, or built during this session') and mentions a prerequisite ('Requires Memory plan'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, such as when to use 'add_knowledge' instead for non-session data.

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