capture_with_profile

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, and open-world. The description adds no behavioral details beyond what parameters imply. It does not mention side effects (e.g., network interface usage, potential packet loss), permissions needed, or capture lifecycle (how to stop, where output goes).

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 concise (under 100 words) and front-loaded with the purpose. The parameter list is readable, though it could be improved with bullet points or formatting. Every sentence is informative, and there is no fluff.

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's complexity (capture with profile, 4 params, no output schema), the description lacks key details: what is the capture output (file, stream, memory?), how to stop capture, any dependencies (Wireshark profiles must exist), and error conditions. The agent may struggle to use it correctly without more context.

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 description must compensate. It provides brief parameter descriptions: 'network interface name (e.g., eth0, en0)', 'Wireshark profile name to apply', and defaults for duration/packet_count. While it adds examples and context, it does not explain how to discover valid interfaces or profile names, nor how duration/packet_count interact (e.g., which stops first). This is adequate but not rich.

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 does a live capture using a Wireshark profile's configuration. This is distinct from sibling tools like 'capture_live_packets' (which presumably lacks profile integration) and 'apply_profile_capture' (which may only apply the profile without capturing). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from these siblings.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., Wireshark must be installed, profile must exist) or exclusions (e.g., not for offline captures). The agent is left to infer usage from the name and parameters.

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