stop_network_capture

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Stop capturing' implies a state change operation, but it doesn't describe what happens after stopping (e.g., whether captured data persists, whether it's automatically saved or cleared, or what permissions are required). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without any unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a state-change tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It tells what the tool does at a high level but lacks important context about what happens after stopping capture, what the tool returns, or how it interacts with related tools. Given the complexity of network capture operations, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage and only one optional parameter, the schema already fully documents the 'pageId' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage and simple parameter structure. The baseline for this scenario is appropriately high.

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 'Stop capturing network requests' clearly states the verb ('Stop') and resource ('capturing network requests'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling tool 'stop_console_capture' which has a similar structure but different target, nor does it specify what happens to the captured data.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that network capture must be started first), nor does it clarify when to use this versus 'clear_network_logs' or 'remove_intercept' which are related sibling tools.

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