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

With annotations declaring readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description goes well beyond them: it discloses that packets are overwhelmingly TLS-encrypted with no HTTP bodies, that output is a Wireshark .pcapng, and that only one capture may run per device. It does not spell out permissions or auth requirements, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Every sentence carries information: capture scope, encryption caveat, output format, concurrency limit, filter parameters, lifecycle, and the alternative routing. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no 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?

Even without an output schema, the description states the return artifact (.pcapng), the filtering options, the concurrency limit, and the required termination call via ios_pcap_stop. An agent has everything needed to start and correctly conclude a capture.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description contributes concrete example values (mobilesafari / backboardd for `process`, en0 for `interfaceName`) and clarifies `packets` as an auto-stop threshold. That is real added meaning beyond the schema text.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start a device-wide NATIVE network packet capture on an iOS device') and immediately scopes what is captured (real packets, no HTTP bodies). An agent can distinguish it from ios_safari_capture_network and ios_traffic_start without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative and the condition that selects it ('For Safari HTTP traffic with bodies, use ios_safari_capture_network instead'), states the lifecycle constraint ('One capture per device', 'End with ios_pcap_stop'), and notes when auto-stop applies. Nothing is left to inference.

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