ruyi_capture_stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: it clears unconsumed queue/history, which is a potentially destructive action, and explains why. However, it doesn't mention how pageIdx affects scope or whether the operation is reversible, leaving some behavioral 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 core purpose. Each sentence serves a distinct function: stating the action and providing a critical prerequisite. No wasted words.

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 lack of an output schema, the description covers the core action and a critical prerequisite (call wait first). It does not cover parameter semantics or return behavior, but these are secondary. The description is adequate for an agent to use the tool correctly in most cases, though a mention of pageIdx would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 50% (only cleanupTimeout has a description). The description adds no information about either parameter. pageIdx is completely undocumented in both schema and description, and its meaning is not obvious from context. The description should have explained that pageIdx selects the page/context to stop.

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 '停止被动抓包' (stop passive capture) with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from related tools by mentioning the side effect of clearing unconsumed queue/history and the need to call ruyi_capture_wait first, which differentiates it from a simple stop.

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 explicitly instructs when to use this tool: if results are needed, call ruyi_capture_wait first before stopping. It also explains the rationale (avoiding implicit body read), providing clear guidance on the proper sequence of calls. This is strong usage direction.

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