capture_idea

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a create/record action, but says nothing about persistence semantics, whether it overwrites prior entries, required permissions, error behavior, or what the caller receives back. The second sentence describes downstream use rather than this tool's own behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the entry-point framing following. Every sentence is relevant, though the second sentence is more about the broader workflow than about this tool specifically.

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 4-parameter creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is only partially complete: it explains intent and three of four inputs but omits preferred_approach, and it leaves behavioral traits (persistence, return, idempotency) undocumented.

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 compensate, and it does partially: it names the idea, the top-level goal, and the constraints, mapping 3 of the 4 parameters. However, preferred_approach is never mentioned, and no format or content expectations (e.g., granularity of constraints) are given for any 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?

States a specific verb (记录/record) and resource (一个新想法/an idea) plus the associated goal and constraints, and frames itself as the entry point of a top-level design flow. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like save_insight or add_design_node, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

It implies usage by calling itself 'the entry point for top-level design' and names downstream activities (listing options, decomposing, reverse-reasoning), which suggests this is the first step. But it never states when NOT to use it nor names a concrete alternative sibling tool, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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