llm_capture_brief

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes output contents but omits any side effects, auth needs, or limitations (e.g., destructive potential, rate limits). The mention of 'compact' implies reduced size but without specifics.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and key content. Efficient, but could be improved by adding parameter clarifications without becoming verbose.

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?

Despite having an output schema and some sibling names, the description does not explain how this tool differs from other llm_* summary tools, nor does it clarify what 'compact' means in practice. Completeness is inadequate for effective selection.

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%, and the description does not explain what 'capture_path' or 'limit' mean. No parameter details are provided, so the description adds no value 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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource as a 'compact capture brief' with listed contents (metadata, top protocols, talkers, notable packets). It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools that also return summaries (e.g., llm_protocol_summary, llm_top_talkers).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like llm_dns_summary or llm_investigate. The description only states what it returns, not context or prerequisites.

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