Get Tcpdump Config

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

readOnlyHint=true already marks this as a safe read. Beyond that, the description discloses a genuine behavioral limitation — that this build exposes only `show` modes and that add/start/detail fail with specific error codes — which is real context an agent cannot get from annotations and useful for avoiding dead-end calls.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded and the caveat is short. It is economically sized overall, though the error-code shorthand (3001/2014/2007) is cryptic to a reader without the vendor's code table.

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?

For a no-parameter read tool with an output schema and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the necessary ground — the purpose plus the build-specific limitation — without needing to restate return values.

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 schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description references `TYPE` and `show` selectors that do not appear in the schema, which is slightly confusing, but with no params to document there is little semantic value left to add.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('获取抓包工具配置' = get packet capture tool config), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from related siblings such as get_capture_interfaces or get_port_mirror_config.

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 note about the free 4.0.313 tcpdump module being trimmed (which subcommands work vs. return 3001/2014/2007) gives practical operating context. But it never states when to choose this tool over the adjacent capture/interface tools, so usage selection is only implied.

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