capture_calls_around

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Bounded' and 'raw' hint at truncated, unprocessed output, but the description never states it is read-only, what permissions are needed, what 'bounded' means in practice, or how data is limited.

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 the verb and the scoping constraint up front and zero 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. It omits the meaning of most parameters and the destructive/safety profile.

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 8 parameters, and the description adds almost nothing. 'Bounded' loosely gestures at before/after and 'around one saved call' hints at record_index, but file_path, process_index, include_data, max_data_bytes, and resolve_definitions are left entirely unexplained.

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 specific verb (Return) and resource (raw call-record window) with a scoping qualifier (around one saved call), which sets it apart from broad siblings like capture_call_records or capture_search_calls. It is clear but never explicitly names or contrasts an alternative, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as capture_call_records. The agent must infer the context entirely from the phrase 'around one saved call'.

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