gns3_start_capture

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states the action ('Start packet capture'), it lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't mention that this is a write/mutation operation (starting capture implies changing state), doesn't specify required permissions or authentication (though some parameters suggest auth needs), and omits details like rate limits, side effects, or what happens if capture is already running. The description adds some context (e.g., file naming and data link type), but overall behavioral transparency is inadequate for a tool with no 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 concise and well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, adds a helpful note about Wireshark analysis, and lists key parameters with brief explanations. There's no wasted text, and it's front-loaded with the main action. However, the parameter explanations are minimal and could be more integrated, slightly affecting structure.

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 the complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic action and some parameters but lacks comprehensive guidance. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it still falls short in addressing behavioral aspects and parameter semantics, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only covers 2 out of 7 parameters ('capture_file_name' and 'data_link_type'), providing basic semantics like file naming conventions and default values. However, it misses critical parameters like 'project_id', 'link_id', 'server_url', 'username', and 'password', leaving their purpose and usage unclear. The description adds some value but fails to adequately compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Start packet capture on a link.' It specifies the verb ('Start') and resource ('packet capture on a link'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'gns3_stop_capture' beyond the obvious start/stop distinction, missing an opportunity for clearer sibling differentiation.

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 provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions that captured packets can be analyzed with Wireshark, which hints at the tool's purpose, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compared to other capture-related tools or network monitoring methods). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with little direction.

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