Capture remote traffic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that start replaces the previous log, that hooks exist only during capture, that the log is retained after stop, that executor-originated calls are tagged [by executor], and that long results are truncated to a temp file. Missing peripheral details like auth or port behavior, but the key lifecycle and side-effect traits are covered.

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 core capability is stated first, then bulleted semantics for each action and each read mode. Every line carries information — no filler, no repetition of the schema, and the bullets make it scannable.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description properly explains the return shape (per-remote summary vs. individual calls, truncation with temp-file fallback). Combined with the action semantics, an agent has enough to invoke and interpret results, though a note on how the temp file path is returned would close the last gap.

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 already describes all five parameters (80% coverage), yet the description adds genuine meaning: the two read modes (summary vs. individual calls collapsed), what collapsing means, and concrete use of `exclude` (hiding noisy remotes). It exceeds the baseline-3 expectation for high-coverage schemas.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Capture remote traffic between the client and server") and enumerates exactly what is captured — outgoing FireServer/InvokeServer with return values and calling script, plus incoming OnClientEvent. This level of specificity makes it trivially distinguishable from siblings like logs or scripts.

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?

It clearly documents when to use each action (start/stop/read), notes that read works while running, and gives actionable advice ("stop as soon as you have what you need"). It stops short of explicitly routing against alternative sibling tools such as logs or scripts, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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