capture_download

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

Without annotations, the description only indicates a non-destructive download. It does not disclose what happens if no capture file exists, overwrite behavior, permissions needed, or any side effects.

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?

A single, clear sentence with no wasted words. Follows a logical structure: verb, object, modifiers, destination.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description does not mention return values or error conditions. It lacks details on preconditions (e.g., capture must be started) and behavior for optional parameters.

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%, yet the description provides no explanation of parameter formats, constraints, or the role of optional project_id. Parameter names are self-explanatory but the description adds minimal value.

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 (download), the resource (current/last pcap capture file), the context (for a link), and the destination (dest_path). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like capture_start and capture_stop.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like capture_wireshark_restart. No preconditions or postconditions mentioned.

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