capture_extract_call_payload

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. It notes that the payload is 'bounded' and 'raw', but does not disclose that extraction writes to output_path, what overwrite does, how max_bytes truncates, or any permission or side-effect information.

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?

It is a single sentence with no wasted words, but for a tool with 7 parameters and 5 required inputs, this level of brevity is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description is too small to be appropriately sized for the operation'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 7 parameters, 5 required fields, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description is critically incomplete. It says nothing about how to identify the target call record, how the payload is written, or how optional parameters affect behavior; the presence of an output schema does not excuse these input-side 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 0% across 7 parameters, including 5 required ones. The description does not explain file_path, process_index, record_index, slot, output_path, max_bytes, or overwrite, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Extract') and a specific resource ('one bounded raw payload referenced by a saved call record'), so an agent can understand the basic operation. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from close siblings such as capture_extract_entry or capture_read_entry, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like capture_extract_entry, capture_read_entry, or capture_export_calls. The description only identifies the operation, leaving selection criteria entirely implicit.

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