Capture Open

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavior disclosure. It communicates the load operation and returned capture_id/channels, but it does not mention side effects, supported file formats, error behavior, or whether loading replaces an existing capture. This is partial but not comprehensive transparency.

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 three short sentences and every sentence adds value: what it loads, what it returns, and where pin maps belong. There is no redundant filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need full restatement. Still, given no annotations and zero parameter documentation, the description leaves format_id semantics and possible stateful effects unexplained. It is adequate for a simple call with just path, but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It weakly implies that path is a file path, but it does not clarify format_id at all, including when it should be provided or what formats it accepts. The optional parameter remains ambiguous.

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 a clear verb and resource: 'Load a capture/trace file.' It also names the return values and explicitly routes pin-map work to bus_decode, which distinguishes it from the sibling tool of the same domain.

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 makes the loading use case clear and gives an explicit exclusion by stating 'Pin maps belong on bus_decode.' It does not explicitly contrast with instrument_capture, but the sibling names and 'Load a capture/trace file' make the intended context evident.

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