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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: captures real network-layer packets, TLS-encrypted (no HTTP bodies), one capture per device, and produces a .pcapng file. It does not mention permission needs or behavior if a capture is already running, but the core constraints and limitations are well covered.

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?

Three well-structured sentences with critical information front-loaded. Every sentence provides actionable information: what it does, limitations, options, lifecycle, and alternatives. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description is comprehensive for a packet-capture tool with no output schema and no annotations. It covers purpose, limitations, filters, auto-stop, and the stop command. A minor gap is not explaining what the command returns (e.g., capture file path), but this is likely handled by ios_pcap_stop and does not prevent correct usage.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing concrete examples for `process` (mobilesafari / backboardd) and `interfaceName` (en0), and clarifying that filters are optional. This enriches the parameter meaning without being redundant.

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 clearly states a specific action 'Start a device-wide NATIVE network packet capture' and defines the resource (iOS device) and output (.pcapng). It explicitly distinguishes itself from ios_safari_capture_network by noting the absence of HTTP bodies and the network-layer/TLS-encrypted focus.

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?

Provides explicit lifecycle guidance ('End with ios_pcap_stop') and a clear alternative ('For Safari HTTP traffic with bodies, use ios_safari_capture_network instead'). It also mentions optional filters and auto-stop, giving practical context for when to use and when to choose the sibling tool.

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