capture_start

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral traits. It reveals that long captures use ring-buffer rotation, which is useful, but omits other key behaviors: what defines 'bounded' (limits from parameters), side effects (e.g., file creation), or error conditions. The description adds some context but is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value ('bounded' and 'ring-buffer rotation'). However, brevity sacrifices completeness, preventing a higher score.

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 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema present but undescribed, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the return value (capture ID or status), how to stop or monitor the capture, or the effect of parameters like 'single_file'. The complexity demands more detail for an agent to use the tool reliably.

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 explain parameters. It does not mention interface, duration, packet_count, capture_filter, or single_file at all. The agent must rely solely on parameter names (e.g., 'duration' hints at time limit), which is inadequate for correct usage.

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 states 'Start a bounded live capture,' which clearly indicates the tool's verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like capture_list or capture_stop by focusing on starting a capture. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other start-related tools like capture_ring_buffer, limiting full clarity.

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 guidance: 'Long captures use ring-buffer rotation by default' implies a condition but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice. It does not reference alternatives like capture_ring_buffer for configuration or capture_sample for short captures, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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