reverse_peek_live_entries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the key behavior (snapshot, inspect new entries, no advance) but omits important details: whether it requires an active capture, how 'new' is defined, what happens to the live cursor (explicitly no advance, but no mention of side effects like locking), or whether it consumes resources. It does not contradict annotations (none exist), but transparency is partial.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the key purpose and behavior. No unnecessary words, but it could have been two sentences to add usage guidance without losing 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 (7 params, live session context, output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., must start capture first), clarify the meaning of 'new' entries, or note that all filters are optional. The output schema exists but the description doesn't explain how to interpret the snapshot format, so agents may misuse filters or misinterpret results.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. The description only covers the core 'live_session_id' implicitly and the non-advancing behavior, but does not explain filters (method_in, status_in, etc.) or the 'snapshot_format' meaning beyond the enum. No parameter semantics are added by the description; it leaves most parameters to schema defaults.

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 ('Snapshot'), a specific resource ('Charles session'), and a distinct behavior ('inspect only new entries without advancing the live cursor'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like 'read_live_entries' by emphasizing non-advancing inspection, which is strong but not fully exhaustive (e.g., doesn't mention whether it filters by session).

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 a use case (peeking at new entries without consuming them) but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'query_live_capture_entries' or 'peek_live_capture'. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, but the non-advancing behavior is a clear contextual hint.

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