get_capture_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does state the key behavioral trait — this reflects a live, ongoing capture and reports sample/loss/rate/duration counters — but omits what happens when no capture is running (error vs empty) and does not confirm it is a non-mutating read.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with a label-then-fields structure ('real-time status of in-progress capture: samples/lost/rate/duration'). No filler and no 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description usefully enumerates the four returned metrics, which is the main thing an agent needs. It leaves a small gap around behavior when no capture is active, but is otherwise complete for a zero-parameter status probe.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the empty argument schema is self-explanatory and the description needs no compensation. Baseline 4 applies.

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 names a specific verb+resource combination (real-time status of an in-progress capture) and enumerates the returned metrics (samples captured/lost/rate/duration), so an agent can tell it apart from list_captures at a glance. It never explicitly names a sibling, so it stops short of the top score.

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?

"进行中采集" (in-progress capture) implies the appropriate usage window and distinguishes it from historical listing tools, but there is no explicit when/when-not statement and no alternative named for checking finished captures.

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