airodump_capture

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'runs in background', but omits important details: that it is a long-running process, that it creates output files with the given prefix, how it affects system resources, or whether multiple captures can run concurrently. The schema parameters hint at outputPrefix, but the description does not clarify 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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word is informative, with no redundant or filler content.

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 tool with 4 required parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits critical context: that the capture is continuous until stopped, how to stop it (sibling airodump_stop), that network interface must be in monitor mode (partially covered by iface param description but not tool description), and that output files are generated. The agent lacks enough information to use it correctly in a workflow.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides; it merely restates that packets are captured from a specific access point (which relates to bssid). The background execution note is behavioral, not parameter-specific.

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 clearly states the verb 'start capturing' and the resource 'packets from a specific access point', and adds 'runs in background' to specify execution mode. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like airodump_scan (which scans for APs) and airodump_status (which checks status).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that scanning via airodump_scan should precede capture, or that this tool runs asynchronously and must be stopped with airodump_stop. The context signals show many related sibling tools, but the description provides no selection criteria.

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