get_capture_interfaces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that interface fields depend on what the capture writer recorded, and the Args section notes the capture must be currently loaded. The return list (interface count, names, link types, snap lengths, timestamp precision, OS, packet counts) hints at read-only behavior. This is more transparent than many tools with zero annotations, though it doesn't mention error cases or side effects beyond the implicit read.

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 well-organized. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the relationship to get_capture_metadata, then a short Args/Returns breakdown. No filler or redundant text; every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a tool with a single required parameter and no annotations, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, the behavioral caveat about field dependence, the loaded-capture prerequisite, and the return contents. It also distinguishes itself from a key sibling. There is nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly that is missing.

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. It does so for the only parameter by adding 'ID of a currently loaded capture,' which specifies a prerequisite and clarifies the expected input beyond the bare 'Capture Id' in the schema. This is meaningful additional semantics that helps an agent understand what value to supply.

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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'List capture interfaces or radio adapters stored in the file.' It then explicitly frames itself as a focused view of get_capture_metadata for multi-interface PCAPNG files, which differentiates it from that sibling and makes its purpose unmistakable. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 usage context by stating it is 'a focused view of get_capture_metadata for multi-interface PCAPNG files,' implying that for multi-interface files this tool is more targeted than the broader metadata call. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use alternatives, but the reference to get_capture_metadata and the multi-interface condition give enough context for an agent to choose correctly in most scenarios.

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