network_capture

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes each action's effect (e.g., 'begin capturing', 'stop capturing (buffer retained)', 'clear the capture buffer', 'return current capture state') and notes that url_pattern defaults to capturing all and capture_body is for start only. It also specifies the return format. It lacks details on memory/performance impacts but is otherwise transparent.

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 well-structured with a brief sentence, then Args and Returns sections. It is efficient and front-loaded. The version number 'v0.9.0' adds minor clutter but does not significantly harm conciseness.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, parameters, actions, and return value. It is complete for controlling network capture, though it does not mention integration with sibling tools for reading captured data.

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. It fully explains each parameter: action values (start, stop, clear, status) with their meanings, url_pattern as a glob pattern for start, and capture_body as a boolean for start only. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 explicitly states it is 'Unified network capture control' and lists specific actions (start, stop, clear, status), making the tool's purpose clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like start_network_capture and stop_network_capture by noting it replaces them.

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 states it replaces start_network_capture and stop_network_capture, giving context on when to use this tool over separate ones. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for reading captured data, leaving some workflow ambiguity.

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