unload_capture

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

The description discloses important behavioral details beyond the schema: it forgets capture metadata and configured decryption keys, and it never deletes or changes the source file. This is valuable context for an agent deciding whether to call this tool, especially since no annotations are provided. It could additionally mention whether the operation is reversible, but the disclosed side effects are strong.

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-structured: a one-sentence summary, a clear side-effects paragraph, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence earns its place and the most important behavioral caveat (does not delete source file) is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, what side effects it has, what the parameter means, and what the return value is. It could be slightly more explicit about when to use it relative to reload_capture or list_loaded_captures, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that capture_id is 'ID previously supplied to load_capture', which gives the agent the provenance and format expectation for the parameter. This is meaningful guidance beyond the bare schema definition.

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 ('Remove a loaded capture from the current server session') and specifies the resource (a capture previously loaded via load_capture). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from deletion of the source file, which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like reload_capture or export_filtered_capture.

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 when to use this tool: when a capture is loaded and you want to remove it from the session. It also clarifies what it does NOT do (never deletes or changes the source PCAP/PCAPNG file), which is a useful exclusion. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, though the sibling list makes the context fairly clear.

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