stop_packet_capture

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the precondition that the capture must be running and that capture_id must reference an existing definition, and it describes the success/error result shape, but it says nothing about side effects, irreversibility, permission requirements, or failure behavior when the capture is already stopped.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one clear sentence and the Args/Example blocks are compact. The Returns block is largely redundant because an output schema already exists, but it does not bloat the definition.

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?

For a single-parameter state-change tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, the one parameter's meaning, and outcome shape. The remaining gap is failure-mode behavior when no capture is running.

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 0% and the only parameter is a bare integer, but the description clarifies it is the 'ID of an existing packet capture definition', which tells the agent this is the definition ID rather than a runtime session handle.

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: "Stop a running packet capture." The verb 'stop' cleanly separates it from the sibling verbs start_packet_capture, get_packet_capture_status, and list_packet_captures, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase 'running packet capture' hints at a precondition but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of checking status first via get_packet_capture_status, and no statement about what to do if the capture is not running.

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