capture_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists output fields and does not mention whether the tool mutates anything, requires special permissions, has side effects, or returns results in a specific format. It implies a read-only analysis but never states it, leaving significant behavioral uncertainty for an agent.

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 extremely concise, essentially a single fragment. While this avoids verbosity, it sacrifices necessary detail. It front-loads the core output fields, but leaves out usage context and parameter clarification. Conciseness is achieved at the expense of completeness, so it earns only a middling score.

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?

Given the tool's apparent complexity (analyzing a capture) and the absence of an output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the description is drastically incomplete. An agent cannot safely determine how to call the tool (what to pass for 'capture') or interpret the result beyond the listed fields. It falls far short of what is needed for correct invocation.

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 single parameter 'capture' has no schema description (coverage 0%). The tool description does not explain what 'capture' refers to—a file path, a capture ID, or an interface name—nor does it specify expected format or constraints. Since the description is the only source of parameter meaning and it provides none, this is a critical gap.

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 states a clear purpose: it provides a summary (packet count, duration, byte totals, encapsulation) for a capture. This is specific enough to distinguish it from packet_detail or packet_summary, which likely offer different granularity. However, it does not explicitly mention that it operates on a captured file versus a live capture, leaving some ambiguity.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like packet_summary, protocol_hierarchy, or io_stats. It does not state whether this is a read-only analysis, what prerequisites exist (e.g., a valid capture ID), or when another tool would be more appropriate. The user is left to infer usage entirely.

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