List Interceptors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions listing interceptors and their activation status, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, or what happens if the proxyPort parameter is omitted. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational details.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('List all available HTTP traffic interceptors') and adds useful details (examples and activation status) without waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (listing with optional parameter) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the purpose but misses behavioral transparency and output details. However, it's adequate for a basic listing tool, though improvements in transparency would enhance completeness.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'proxyPort'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how proxyPort affects the listing or activation status check). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 specific action ('List all available HTTP traffic interceptors') and resource ('HTTP traffic interceptors'), including examples of what types are included (browsers, terminals, mobile devices, Docker, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on listing rather than activating, capturing, or other interceptor-related actions.

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 implies usage for checking activation status, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_interceptor_metadata' or 'get_network_interfaces'. It provides some context (checking activation status) but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools.

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