list_pcap_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the list includes captures from an earlier server run with an 'on_disk' status, and enumerates the status values and per-entry fields. This goes well beyond a bare 'list captures' statement and gives the agent useful expectations about behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose before adding supporting detail. Each sentence adds value: the first defines scope, the second describes entry contents and related operations, and the third covers edge-case behavior for on-disk files. There is no redundant text.

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?

The tool has no parameters and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. It provides everything an agent needs to decide when to call it and what the results mean, including statuses, related sibling tools, and the significant on-disk behavior. Nothing essential is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the input schema already fully covers parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter details because none are needed. This matches the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 and resource: 'List the non-streaming, file-backed captures this server has started.' It clearly distinguishes this from streaming capture tools such as list_capture_sessions by explicitly scoping to non-streaming, file-backed captures. It also enumerates exactly what each entry contains.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate: enumerating non-streaming, file-backed captures, including active, completed, and on-disk captures. It also names the related sibling tools stop_pcap_file and fetch_pcap_file as follow-ups, which helps an agent choose the correct next action. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the differentiation from streaming captures is implied.

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