capture_start

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying the privilege requirement and the return of a session ID, providing behavioral context beyond what annotations convey.

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 two sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the primary action and includes the two most critical details (privilege and return value), making it highly concise.

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 lacks guidance on the many optional parameters and does not set expectations for resource usage or lifecycle (e.g., needing to stop the capture later). For a tool with 11 parameters, this is under-specified.

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 for 11 parameters. It only mentions the 'interface' parameter implicitly, leaving autostop, ring_buffer, output_format, capture_filter, and others unexplained. This is a significant gap for a complex parameter set.

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 ('Start live packet capture') and the resource ('network interface'). It also notes the returned session ID, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like capture_stop or capture_list_interfaces.

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 provides a prerequisite (root or cap_net_raw capability) which is useful but does not explicitly say when to use this tool vs alternatives like capture_list_interfaces or capture_stop. The usage context is implied rather than directly stated.

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