packet_capture

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It fails to disclose potential resource usage, the need to stop captures, or side effects like file creation. The short phrase 'start, stop, or fetch' is insufficient for a tool with 9 parameters.

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 brief (7 words) and front-loaded with the core actions. However, it is overly minimal and does not earn its place by providing any additional context that the schema alone doesn't offer.

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?

Given the tool has 9 optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits the lifecycle (e.g., you must start before fetching) and does not explain what 'fetch' returns or how streaming works.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, but does not detract either.

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 clearly states the tool performs three actions (start, stop, fetch) on packet captures, identifying the resource and verb. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_logs or interface_list, which are also network-related but not capture-specific.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites or context for the actions (e.g., needing to start before fetching). The agent receives no cue about the appropriate workflow.

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