capture_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only 'Show' operation, but does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or whether it makes network calls. For a status tool, this is acceptable but not deeply transparent.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb 'Show' and lists the key outputs concisely. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple 0-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it specifies the three things the user will learn (URL, request count, exposure instructions). It does not describe a return format, but that is a minor gap for such a simple tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description adds no parameter details because none are needed. It appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than inputs.

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's function: 'Show the local webhook capture URL, how many requests have been captured, and how to expose it to the internet.' The verb 'Show' is specific, and the resource (capture status) is well-defined, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual requests.

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 the tool is used to check the capture URL and request count, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like list_requests or wait_for_request. There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, though the purpose is clear enough for a status check.

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