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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The description discloses it reports status (running + byte count), which is a read-only behavioral trait. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if no active capture exists (returns not-running vs error), or whether this tool affects the capture in any way. The read-only nature is reasonably implied but could be more explicit given no annotations.

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, tightly-worded sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the main purpose (report status) and includes the two key data points (running state and byte count) without padding.

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 tool is simple: one parameter, no output schema, read-only status query. The description covers the core behavior (reports running status and byte count). Minor gaps include what happens when no capture is active and the exact output format, but for a simple status-check tool with strong sibling context (pcap_start/pcap_stop), this is largely complete.

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% with a single udid parameter described as 'iOS device UDID'. The description doesn't need to add much for a single self-explanatory parameter. The description effectively conveys the tool operates on a specific iOS device, which complements the parameter. Baseline 3 applies, with the 'native packet capture' context adding marginal value, so 4 is slightly generous but reasonable given the parameter's simplicity.

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 the tool reports active native packet capture status on an iOS device, specifying it reports whether capture is running and bytes captured. This distinguishes it from sibling tools ios_pcap_start and ios_pcap_stop, which clearly initiate and stop capture respectively.

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 context (after starting a pcap capture via ios_pcap_start, to check its status) but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives. It references 'active' capture, which implies it should be used during an ongoing capture session, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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