capture_search_calls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It never states that this is a read-only operation, does not mention permission or file-access requirements implied by the required file_path, and says nothing about how decoding or definition resolution behave when enabled. Only the existence of an output schema offsets some of this.

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 first and no filler. It is well-formed, though its brevity here 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?

For an 8-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage and no annotations, one sentence is far too thin. The output schema covers return values, but nothing explains the search semantics, the source file requirements, or the tuning knobs that govern result size and decoding.

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% for 8 parameters, and the description only loosely gestures at decode_arguments and resolve_definitions via the words 'decoded arguments' and 'API definitions'. Required parameters file_path and query, plus limit, max_records, process_index, and max_data_bytes, get no explanation of meaning, units, or 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 states a clear verb (Search) and names specific resources: saved call payloads, API definitions, and decoded arguments. That is more informative than a bare restatement of the name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as capture_search_entries or capture_read_definition, leaving the agent to infer which search target applies.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many sibling search tools (capture_search_entries, capture_search_directory, api_monitor_search_apis), nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance. The agent must guess from the resource nouns alone.

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