peek_live_capture

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It successfully communicates that the operation is non-destructive ('does not consume items'), safe for polling, and returns compact summaries. It does not mention error conditions or authentication requirements, hence not a perfect 5.

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?

Four sentences with zero waste: opens with the core action, details the return format, explains the safety/behavioral contract, and concludes with sibling differentiation. Every sentence earns its place and is front-loaded with critical information.

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 (3 params, simple concept) and the existence of an output schema, the description is appropriately complete. It summarizes the return value sufficiently without duplicating the output schema, though it could have briefly mentioned the limit parameter's role in pagination.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. It successfully explains the 'cursor' semantics ('without advancing the cursor'), which is the most complex parameter (anyOf int/null). However, it omits explicit description of 'limit' and 'capture_id', though these are relatively self-explanatory from their titles and context.

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 action (preview incremental traffic), the resource (live capture), and the key mechanism (without advancing the cursor). It effectively distinguishes from siblings by contrasting with query_live_capture_entries and implying the difference from read_live_capture through the 'does not consume items' clarification.

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?

Excellent guidance provided: explicitly states 'Safe to call repeatedly' indicating polling scenarios, clarifies the non-consuming nature (idempotent peek semantics), and directly names the alternative tool 'query_live_capture_entries' for when structured filtering is needed instead of simple preview.

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