Start capture proxy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully corroborates idempotency by stating that an already-running proxy returns the current status, but adds nothing about permissions, background lifecycle, or resource impact.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action comes first, followed by options and then the repeated-call behavior. Slightly more compact phrasing would be possible, but nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description partially compensates by noting that an already-running proxy returns the current status, giving the agent a signal about return content. It still leaves the exact shape of that status and the lifecycle of the started proxy unspecified, but for a two-optional-parameter tool this is reasonably 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 100%, and the schema already explains the port default and HTTPS MITM via local CA. The description only restates the two options at a high level, adding no syntax or behavioral nuance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ("Start the capture proxy") and immediately clarifies scope with the optional port and TLS interception. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like proxy_status or stop_capture, though the "if already running" clause hints at the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and by the note about what happens if the proxy is already running, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs proxy_status or stop_capture guidance, nor any statement of prerequisites or side effects that would route an agent correctly.

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