open_capture

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the output shape (warnings first, one line per event with time/acl/direction/op/value hex, a 'showing a–b of n events' footer), that a capture can hold several connections each with its own handles, and the known iAP2 limitation. It doesn't state read-only status explicitly or what happens on a missing/invalid file.

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?

Information-dense and front-loaded: the core behavior and output format come first, filter semantics next, caveats last. Slightly long with the iAP2 digression, but nearly every sentence contributes operational detail.

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 six parameters at 0% schema coverage and an existing output schema, the description covers filtering, paging, formatting, and path resolution well enough to call the tool correctly. Minor gaps remain around read-only semantics and error behavior for unreadable captures.

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%, so the description must compensate — and it does: handle takes an integer like 18 for h=0x0012, channel takes e.g. 9, conn takes e.g. 64 for c=0x0040, and it explains that offset counts filtered events after handle/channel/conn are applied. Pagination via limit and offset is also stated.

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 and resource: 'show the att and rfcomm timeline of a phone capture (.pklg or btsnoop log)'. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like diff, scan, and read_char, and clarifies that despite the name 'open_capture' it renders a timeline rather than just loading a file.

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?

Offers real situational guidance — use a btsnoop log from an Android app for classic gadgets because iAP2 traffic on iPhone can't be unwrapped — and notes that relative paths resolve against the server's working directory. However, it never says when to pick this over sibling tools such as diff or scan for the same capture, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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