capture_targeted_traffic

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (possible mutation) and destructiveHint=false but the description does not explain what side effects occur (e.g., where traffic is stored, if it's returned, or if it requires cleanup). The Args mention progress reporting but omit overall behavior and output format.

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 short but includes a redundant Args paragraph that duplicates schema information. It could be streamlined while adding essential guidance. The first sentence is clear but not sufficiently informative.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and openWorldHint=true, the description should explain capture behavior, output, and how filters work. It falls short, providing minimal context for correct invocation, especially for an agent unfamiliar with network capture tools.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It lists names and types but offers no syntax, constraints (e.g., IP format, port range), or how protocols are specified. The protocol list is mentioned in the Args but not as an enum in schema, causing ambiguity.

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 states 'Capture traffic targeted to specific host, port, or protocol.' It clearly indicates the tool's action and the filtering criteria, distinguishing it from broader capture tools like capture_live_packets. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from siblings like quick_capture.

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 vs alternatives such as capture_live_packets or analyze_http_traffic. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or how filters interact, leaving the agent to guess.

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