read_live_capture

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the consuming/advancing behavior, which is a key side effect, and the compact return format. It doesn't mention pagination limits or error conditions, but the core behavioral trait is well covered.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: what it does, what it returns, when to use an alternative, and the cursor side effect. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and side effects. It could mention the limit parameter's default or the meaning of a null cursor, but the core usage is clear.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the cursor parameter's role (advancing cursor) and the limit's effect implicitly, but doesn't detail capture_id or the exact format of the cursor. The description adds some meaning beyond the schema but not full compensation.

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 reads incremental traffic and advances a cursor, with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('live capture'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling query_live_capture_entries by noting it returns compact summaries and consumes the increment.

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?

Explicitly says to use query_live_capture_entries for structured filtering instead, and explains the cursor behavior (repeated calls only return new items). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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