list_capture_sessions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals meaningful state: each session includes owner, interfaces, namespace, and config, and that a session's interface is exclusive to its owner. It also mentions the read-only alternative. It could have explicitly stated that listing itself has no side effects, but the verb 'List' plus the detail given is strong.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, the return content is summarized in one compact sentence, and the ownership caveat plus sibling alternative is saved for the final sentence. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-argument read-only list tool with an output schema, this description is complete. It says what is listed, what fields are reported, and provides the key behavioral constraint plus the obvious sibling alternative. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters sensitive_bucket, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by describing what each returned session contains, which helps the agent interpret results even though no parameter semantics are needed.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pairing: 'List the packet captures currently running on this WLAN Pi.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_pcap_files (file listing) and capture_observe (watch a session) by emphasizing active capture sessions in the present tense.

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 establishes clear context: it lists currently running captures, not saved files or scans. It also explicitly routes the agent to capture_observe for read-only observation of a session. It stops short of a full when-to-use/when-not-to-use matrix, so it misses the top score.

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