load_capture

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the server stores the resolved path and metadata in memory, does not copy or modify the file, does not keep it open, and that loading an existing ID is idempotent. This is valuable behavioral context. However, it does not mention access requirements or what happens if the file is invalid, but it does state the file must be accessible and have a valid extension. A minor gap is the lack of mention of error handling on invalid paths, but overall strong disclosure.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, followed by important behavioral notes, and then formatted parameter details. It is front-loaded with the main instruction. There is no fluff; every sentence adds value. It is appropriately detailed for a tool with zero schema comments.

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 is complete for the tool's complexity as a registration step. It covers all necessary information: when to use, what happens, parameter semantics, and return values. Although an output schema exists and might detail the return structure, the description gives a summary of return fields, which is sufficient. It does not need to describe other tools in depth as they're siblings. This is a comprehensive definition.

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 by explaining that capture_id should be a session-unique name chosen by the caller and provides an example, and it specifies that file_path must be a local path to an existing .pcap or .pcapng file accessible to the server. It also notes whitespace trimming and file format restrictions, adding clear meaning beyond the schema.

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's purpose: to register a local packet-capture file for subsequent analysis. It specifies the action ('Register'), the resource ('local packet-capture file'), and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing it is a prerequisite for tools that accept capture_id. It also mentions idempotency and the normalized ID.

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 to call this before using tools that accept capture_id, which is a clear when-to-use condition. It also mentions that loading an existing ID is idempotent, implying it's safe to reload. Although it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, the context of being a registration step is clear. For a setup tool, this is sufficient.

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