intercept_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only log query, but does not explain what happens if interception was never started, whether the log is cumulative, whether it can be cleared, or what format the output takes. This is thin coverage for a tool with no annotation safety signals.

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, scannable sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the purpose immediately. It is concise, though it achieves conciseness by omitting useful context.

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 two-optional-parameter log viewer, the description is minimally viable: an agent can infer it retrieves interception results and that action/limit filter those results. However, it lacks context about how interception state relates to the log, and with no output schema it does not communicate return shape or edge cases.

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 nothing about the 'limit' or 'action' parameters. The schema provides enums and defaults, but not their meaning or relationship to 'blocked and allowed'. The description should have explained how action=block/allow/all maps to the log contents.

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 clear verb ('Show') and specific resource ('what interception blocked and allowed'), making the tool's purpose understandable. It distinguishes itself from intercept_start/intercept_stop by focusing on reading the log rather than controlling interception state, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus intercept_start, intercept_stop, or network log tools. It does not mention prerequisites such as starting interception first, nor does it explain when filtering by action or changing the limit would be appropriate.

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