stop_pcap_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that the tool signals the background capture to stop, waits for flush/close, and returns the final path, status, and size. It also discloses idempotent behavior for already-ended captures, though it does not describe error handling for invalid capture IDs.

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 first sentence stating the action and scope immediately. Every sentence adds value, including the already-ended behavior and the follow-up fetch instruction; there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to restate return fields. It covers the lifecycle, the already-ended case, file retrieval via fetch_pcap_file, and the deprecated alias. A minor gap is not explicitly stating that a capture must have been started before calling, though the parameter provenance strongly implies it.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the parameter guidance in the description is essential. It adds meaningful provenance by stating capture_id is returned by start_pcap_file and shown by list_pcap_files, and it clearly marks session_id as a deprecated alias. It stops short of specifying effective requiredness or behavior when both parameters are null.

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 'Stop a running non-streaming file capture before its duration elapses,' giving a specific verb, object, and condition. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like start_pcap_file, list_pcap_files, and fetch_pcap_file without needing schema inspection.

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 defines the applicable condition ('before its duration elapses') and notes that an already-ended capture is returned as-is, so callers know calling late is safe. It points to fetch_pcap_file as the follow-up and implies capture_id comes from start/list, though it does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use scenarios.

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