capture_and_decrypt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the side effect of saving a PCAP file, the decryption mechanism, the need for the keylog file, and the return of decrypted content. It could mention the need for elevated permissions, but for most use cases the behavioral disclosure is solid.

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 description is well-structured and efficient: a one-sentence summary, a numbered workflow, a compact args list, and a returns line. Every element adds value, and there is no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, prerequisites, workflow, parameter meanings, and output. The output schema is present, so the description appropriately summarizes return values rather than detailing them.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: interface, keylog_file, output_pcap, packet_count (with default and max), duration (with default and max), and display_filter. This goes well beyond the schema's bare titles and provides actionable meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Capture live TLS traffic and immediately show decrypted plaintext.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like capture_live (which likely only captures) and follow_tls_stream (which decrypts from existing captures). The workflow makes the unique value obvious.

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 description provides clear context for use: it requires the target app to write session keys to a keylog file and explains the prerequisite SSLKEYLOGFILE environment variable. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the workflow makes the appropriate usage scenario evident.

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