packet_capture

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like permissions, state changes, or whether operations are destructive. For a tool with 9 parameters and three different actions, the description is insufficient to understand behavior beyond the basic verb.

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 sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the three verbs. However, it is overly brief given the tool's complexity; it earns its place but could benefit from structured examples or workflow hints.

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 9 parameters, three actions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the capture lifecycle, what fetch returns, or prerequisites like permissions. A more complete description would cover the stateful workflow and output expectations.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters well, but the description could provide usage patterns (e.g., how actions affect parameters).

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 manages packet captures with three actions: start, stop, fetch. It distinguishes itself from siblings like arp, dhcp, or dns which serve different networking purposes. However, it could be more specific about the context (network interfaces) to reach a 5.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling tools are distinct (e.g., dns for DNS queries, dhcp for DHCP), so usage is implied by the name, but the description lacks context for choosing actions or prerequisites.

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