capture_start

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that existing files are appended to, that 'raw' includes echoed received bytes, that 'annotated' adds TX/RX timestamps, and how path resolution works. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 tightly structured: one succinct purpose sentence followed by a compact Args section. Every sentence adds needed information—no filler, repetition, or vague phrasing.

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 description fully covers what the tool does, how to invoke it, what side effects occur (appending to files), and the key parameter semantics. The presence of an output schema means return-value details are not required here. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must fully compensate, and it does. It explains the path default, bare-name versus absolute-path behavior, append semantics, the meaning of each format enum value, and the default for connection. Every parameter is meaningfully documented.

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 pair: 'Start writing this connection's traffic to a file until capture_stop.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like capture_stop, get_transcript, and send_text, and names the exact resource affected.

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 makes clear that this is the tool to begin a capture session and implicitly identifies capture_stop as the paired termination tool. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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