start_live_capture

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the safe default adopts the existing session without clearing traffic, that start_recording is idempotent, that prior traffic remains visible, that reset is destructive and irreversible, and that a capture_id is returned. This is unusually transparent for a mutating-capable tool.

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 well-organized with clear sections and front-loads the core purpose and usage preference. While long, every sentence adds operational value: defaults, exclusions, destructive caveats, and return-value requirements are all covered without filler.

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 absence of annotations, the presence of an output schema, and three optional boolean parameters, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke this tool correctly. It covers safe defaults, destructive alternatives, incremental read behavior, and the capture_id contract with follow-up tools.

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 for the three boolean parameters. It does explain reset_session as destructive and alludes to start_recording_if_stopped through idempotent recording behavior, but it never explicitly defines adopt_existing=false semantics, leaving one parameter under-explained.

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 explicitly says 'Start or adopt a live capture session for incremental polling' and further clarifies it is the default entry point for live-plane analysis. It clearly distinguishes from saved-recording tools like list_recordings and query_recorded_traffic by naming them as alternatives.

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?

It states exactly when to prefer this tool ('when the user wants to inspect ongoing / just-now traffic') and explicitly warns against defaulting to saved-recording tools unless a .chlsj file is named. It also gives precise conditions for using reset_session=true, tied to explicit user requests to clear/wipe the session.

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