ruyi_intercept_requests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that interception starts, filtering is supported, and consumes via wait, but does not mention side effects, whether interception replaces existing sessions, or how to stop. It partially compensates but leaves 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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. The sentence about future versions is slightly unnecessary but not verbose. Overall, every sentence contributes, though the future note could be omitted.

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?

The description provides the core workflow (start interception, consume with wait), but lacks information on stopping (ruyi_intercept_stop exists), behavior if already intercepting, and return value. For a stateful tool, this is incomplete but serviceable.

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 50%: only urlPatterns has a description. The description mentions URL filtering but does not explain pageIdx at all. This leaves a significant semantic gap for the pageIdx parameter, which is undocumented in both schema and description.

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 starts intercepting HTTP requests at the beforeRequestSent stage, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ruyi_intercept_responses by specifying request interception and its primary workflow.

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 usage by noting intercepted requests are consumed via ruyi_intercept_wait, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as ruyi_intercept_responses or explain when not to use this tool. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.

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