capture_start

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that results are obtained via capture_stop, but it omits important behaviors such as whether starting a capture requires an active session, whether repeated calls overwrite prior captures, or whether network traffic is passively observed in the background. This is a stateful operation, and the description does not disclose its side effects.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the core action and the immediate next step with zero filler. The information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow by naming capture_stop as the result retrieval mechanism. However, it leaves gaps around prerequisites (e.g., session/login status) and the lifecycle of the capture, which matter for an agent deciding whether to invoke this tool.

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%, and the single parameter include_body has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific verb ('Inicia captura'), a specific resource ('XHR/Fetch a idealista.com'), and clearly distinguishes the tool from capture_stop by positioning it as the starting half of a pair. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it relates to its sibling.

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 explicitly directs the agent to use capture_stop to obtain results, which communicates the essential workflow for this start/stop pair. It lacks explicit conditions for when NOT to use the tool, but the context is clear enough for a paired capture workflow.

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