list_captures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only the sort order ("newest first") and says nothing about read-only semantics, whether results are paginated, how large the list can get, or whether captures include metadata versus raw data.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the ordering detail is placed where it will be read. It is appropriately sized but so spare that it borders on under-specification rather than tight writing.

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 no-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool the description should still say what a capture record looks like or roughly how many come back. It gives ordering but leaves the return shape entirely unstated, which is a real gap given no output schema exists.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to explain; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. The description correctly implies there is no filtering or paging argument to supply.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List saved captures") plus an ordering guarantee, which is enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like list_devices or capture. It stops short of naming any sibling or clarifying what a 'capture' contains, so it doesn't reach the top band.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative named. For a zero-parameter listing tool the intent is largely self-evident from the name, but the description adds nothing about context, prerequisites, or where it fits alongside capture/analyze_window.

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