capture_call_records

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing behavioral. It never states that it is read-only, that it operates on an existing capture file (only hinted at by 'saved'), whether the file is modified, or what the cost of include_data/max_data_bytes is.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But with 7 parameters at 0% description coverage, no annotations, and no sibling differentiation, the description is far too thin for a tool of this complexity.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not. It loosely gestures at 'offsets' (start_index/process_index) and 'raw data references' (include_data/max_data_bytes) but never explains limit, resolve_definitions, or the defaults.

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 gives a verb and a resource ('Decode saved process call offsets and their raw data references'), so the general action is recoverable. However, 'call offsets' and 'raw data references' are jargon that leaves the actual output ambiguous, and nothing distinguishes this from close siblings such as capture_decode_call, capture_calls_around, or capture_extract_call_payload.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no prerequisites beyond the implied file, no indication of when to prefer this over capture_decode_call, capture_read_process_data, or capture_extract_call_payload. The agent must guess from the name alone.

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