ipc_get_captured

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds critical context about the dependency on ipc_monitor. It also describes the captured content (arguments and responses). Though it doesn't detail error behavior, it sufficiently reveals behavioral traits beyond annotations.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with scope and prerequisite, followed by what the tool shows and a clear alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (commands, events, arguments, responses). It also notes the required monitor state. Could be slightly more complete with error handling or data structure details, but sufficient for a read-only retrieval tool.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (filter, appIdentifier). The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline without extra value.

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 tool is for capturing Tauri IPC traffic, specifies it requires ipc_monitor started, and explains what it shows (commands, events, arguments, responses). It also distinguishes from browser network requests, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly mentions prerequisite ('requires ipc_monitor started') and provides an alternative tool for browser network requests ('use Chrome DevTools MCP instead'), giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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