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

The description discloses important behavioral details: the size threshold (<1 MB) that determines whether the capture is returned inline or written to a file, and the file format (.pcapng). It also mentions opening in Wireshark, which helps the agent understand the output. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does so well.

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 concise and well-structured, with the core action stated first, followed by the output behavior and a practical tip. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary detail.

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 covers the essential information an agent needs: what the tool does, how the output is delivered, and the file format. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing an active capture, but that's implied by the tool name and the sibling ios_pcap_start. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the clear description of return behavior.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter (udid), so the description doesn't need to add much. The description doesn't elaborate on the udid parameter, but the schema already documents it as 'iOS device UDID'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action (stop the active native packet capture), the target (iOS device), and the result (return capture as pcapng). It also distinguishes itself from related tools like ios_pcap_start and ios_pcap_status by focusing on stopping and returning the capture.

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 this tool is used after starting a capture with ios_pcap_start, and it explains the output behavior (inline base64 for small captures, file path for larger ones). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context of stopping an active capture is clear.

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