capture_stop

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

The annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds a human-friendly restatement of idempotency ('safe to call multiple times'), but does not add new behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide, such as effects on captured files or finalization details. It does not contradict annotations.

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: two short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the additional idempotency note earns its place. Every word adds value, meeting the standard for excellent conciseness.

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?

For a simple stop operation with a single parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the core purpose and idempotency. It slightly misses the opportunity to mention where to get capture_session_id, but overall the tool is low-complexity and the description is sufficiently complete for typical 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 coverage is 0% for the single required parameter, capture_session_id. The description does not explain what the session ID is, how to obtain it, or its format. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation, leaving the agent to guess about session identification.

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 uses a specific verb ('Stop') and a clear resource ('a running packet capture'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like capture_start, capture_status, and capture_list_sessions. There is no ambiguity about what tool it is or what action it performs.

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?

It clearly states the context for use: stopping a running capture. It also notes that it is idempotent and safe to call multiple times, which tells the agent it can be used without concern for whether the capture is already stopped. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough for a simple stop operation.

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