network_capture_control

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

With zero annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure, but it is minimal. It doesn't explain side effects (e.g., whether stopping capture preserves collected data, whether clearing also stops capture, or what 'disable_cache' does). The default values for 'clear' (false) and 'disable_cache' (true) are left unexplained, reducing 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 concise at a single sentence of 8 words, but it is under-specified for a tool with three parameters. While it avoids verbosity, it sacrifices important detail. A slightly longer, structured description could improve clarity without harming conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (three parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information about return values (e.g., success confirmation), parameter interactions, and the overall lifecycle of network capture. The agent cannot reliably use this tool based solely on the description.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to add meaning to any of the three parameters. While 'action' aligns with the description's verbs, the boolean parameters 'clear' and 'disable_cache' are not mentioned or elaborated. This forces the agent to guess their semantics, which is a significant gap.

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's purpose: starting, stopping, or clearing a CDP network capture cache. The verb set ('start, stop, or clear') and specific resource ('CDP Network capture cache') make the action unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_network_requests and get_request_detail, which handle data retrieval rather than capture control.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, usage context, or situations where alternatives (e.g., list_network_requests) would be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer the tool's role from the name and description alone.

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