sngrep_capture

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the capture behavior (network interface, duration with 300s max, BPF filter, output path restriction to /tmp or /var/tmp). However, it does not clarify whether the tool blocks until capture completes, overwrites existing files, or requires cleanup. The behavioral transparency is adequate but incomplete.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by a clear table of parameters with defaults and constraints. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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 has 4 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the capture purpose, parameter defaults and constraints, and output path rules. It lacks details on return behavior (but output schema exists) and does not mention if capture is synchronous or has side effects, but overall it is sufficient for basic usage.

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 provides detailed parameter descriptions including defaults, constraints (duration max 300, output path must resolve under /tmp/...), and the filter expression default. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, which only contains defaults and types. A higher score would require even more context like format expectations or side effects.

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 captures SIP traffic using tcpdump with sngrep-compatible pcap output. The verb 'Capture' and resource 'SIP traffic' are specific, and the tool is distinguished from siblings like homer_export_pcap or trace_start_live by focusing on live capture via tcpdump.

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 or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The description only states what it does, not the context of use.

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