Mitmdump Start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'start', without mentioning that this launches a long-running, stateful session, may bind network ports, or should later be stopped via mitmdump_stop. 'Capture session' hints at statefulness, but the description does not explain side effects, resource usage, or lifecycle expectations.

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, well-ordered sentence of about 22 words. It front-loads the action and target, then lists optional capabilities without redundancy, filler, or repetition of the tool name.

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?

This is a complex tool with nested mode objects, nine mode enums, mode-specific fields, and related lifecycle siblings. A single high-level sentence does not give an agent enough context about when to use it, what side effects to expect, or how to choose among modes. The presence of an output schema does not make up for the missing operational guidance.

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 description provides broad semantic framing by mapping major capabilities to parameters: proxy modes to 'mode', output saving to 'save_path', filtering to 'filter_expression', and scripts to 'scripts'. However, given the reported 0% schema description coverage, it does not fully compensate by clarifying mode-specific requirements, flow_detail mapping, listen_host, or set_options.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Start') and names the exact resource ('headless mitmdump capture session'). It also enumerates the key capabilities — proxy modes, .mitm output saving, flow filtering, and scripts — which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mitmweb_start or mitmdump_stop.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mitmweb_start, mitm_execute_command, or mitmdump_stop. The description provides no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name and sibling list.

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