ruyi_capture_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that capture is passive, filters by URL pattern, and results are fetched later. However, it does not mention side effects, scope (e.g., pageIdx), or whether previous captures are replaced, leaving gaps.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and next step.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential start-and-wait workflow, but it omits how to stop capture (ruyi_capture_stop) and fails to clarify the pageIdx parameter. This is adequate but not fully complete for a tool with optional parameters.

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 already documents 'method' and 'pattern', but the description only restates the pattern matching concept and adds no new parameter details. The 'pageIdx' parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description, which is a notable gap for a 3-parameter tool.

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 action: '开始被动抓包' (start passive packet capture), and scopes it by URL pattern matching. It also names the follow-up tool ruyi_capture_wait, distinguishing it from siblings like ruyi_capture_stop and intercept tools.

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 an explicit usage flow: start capture, then use ruyi_capture_wait to retrieve results. It does not explicitly compare with interception tools, but the '被动' (passive) qualifier implies non-modifying observation, giving clear context.

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