responder_capture

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels. It discloses the active poisoning behavior, prerequisites (root/sudo, network interface), detectability by NIDS, and the need for permission. It also explains the difference between analyze_only and full poisoning, and the capture duration behavior.

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 with a clear summary, an Args list, and a highlighted WARNING section. Every sentence adds meaningful information—purpose, parameters, safety, and behavioral guidance—without redundancy. The length is justified by the ethical and legal importance of the warnings.

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?

The tool is complex and dangerous, but the description covers purpose, parameters, prerequisites, safety, operational modes, and expected return content ('Captured NTLM hashes and connection attempts'). An output schema is present, so return details need not be in the description. This is complete for an agent to safely and correctly invoke the 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?

Although the schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), the description includes an Args section that fully documents all four parameters: interface with examples, analyze_only with its passive-mode behavior, capture_duration with default and max, and timeout as an override. This exceeds the schema and gives the agent complete parameter understanding.

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 and resource: 'Capture NTLM credential hashes via LLMNR/NBT-NS poisoning using Responder.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from the many scanning and enumeration sibling tools. The method (Responder, LLMNR/NBT-NS poisoning) is explicit.

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 strong usage guidance, including a warning that this is an active MITM attack, requires root/sudo, is detectable by IDS, and needs explicit authorization. It also explicitly recommends using analyze_only=True for passive observation, giving a clear alternative mode and when to use it.

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