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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that it reports whether capture is running and byte count, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, mention error cases (e.g., no active capture), or describe the output format. It adds some value beyond the schema but leaves gaps in transparency.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose (report active capture) and then details what is reported (running status, bytes). There is no redundancy or unnecessary information. It is appropriately concise and scannable.

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 a simple status tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies what the tool reports, and the lack of an output schema is somewhat compensated by the description of the return content. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an active capture) or any error handling, which could be useful but are not critical for a status query. Overall, it is adequate for an agent to understand its function.

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 100% (the udid parameter is described as 'iOS device UDID'). The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, such as format, source, or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not compensate or enhance the parameter understanding.

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 and specific purpose: reporting the active native packet capture status on an iOS device, including running state and byte count. It identifies the resource (packet capture) and the action (report) unambiguously, and the output is described. It distinguishes itself from sibling start/stop tools by focusing on status rather than action.

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?

The description implies usage for checking status of an ongoing capture, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus ios_pcap_start or ios_pcap_stop, nor does it state prerequisites like an active capture session. The context from sibling names helps, but the description itself offers no direct guidance or exclusions.

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