capture_stop

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a mutation (stopping a capture) but omits side effects (e.g., whether data is saved or discarded), authorization requirements, or error conditions. This leaves many questions unanswered.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loading the core action and resource. It is efficient but slightly under-specified for a tool with two parameters.

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 lack of annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description does not provide sufficient context for a full understanding. Missing details include prerequisites, relationship to capture_start, and return value behavior (despite an output schema).

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 adds no meaning about the parameters. 'link_id' is required but unexplained, and 'project_id' is optional with no context on its role. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 ('stop') and the resource ('packet capture on a link'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like capture_start and capture_download. However, it lacks specificity about which capture instance or link is targeted.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as capture_start or capture_download. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an active capture) or context for usage.

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