capture_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and output, omitting operational details like capture duration, interface requirements, potential admin privileges, or side effects. This leaves the agent unaware of the time/resource impact.

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?

Description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the action. The Chinese '【实时抓包】' is slightly redundant with 'Capture live traffic' but not harmful. Overall efficient and easy to scan.

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?

Description covers purpose and use cases, but lacks explanation of the output format of 'protocol hierarchy statistics' and does not mention that this is a live capture requiring network access or privileges. With no output schema and no annotations, this is a moderate gap for a simple tool.

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 100%, with each parameter (duration, interface, tshark_path) having a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Capture live traffic and provide protocol hierarchy statistics', using specific verb 'capture' and resource 'live traffic' with a defined output. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like capture_packets and capture_conversations by focusing on protocol distribution.

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?

Description lists three concrete when-to-use scenarios: 'User wants protocol distribution', 'Quick network overview', 'Traffic analysis summary'. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use.

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