Set or clear the capture scope (retention scoping)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that interception is unaffected, describes the effect on retained traffic, notes that already-captured entries are unaffected, and states that the active scope and captured-traffic count are returned. These are meaningful behavioral traits 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 four sentences, with the main purpose stated immediately. Each sentence adds useful information (scope semantics, wildcards, return value, non-destructive behavior) without redundancy or fluff.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is complete: it covers what the tool does, when to use it, parameter behavior, return value, and side effects. Nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, but the description adds valuable parameter semantics: subdomains are included, wildcards like '*.example.com' are allowed, and the omission/empty-array behavior is explained. This goes beyond the schema's simple example and improves agent 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 states a specific verb ('Restrict') and resource ('which traffic is retained in the proxy log'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that control interception (proxy_start/stop) or serve mocks. It explicitly references the affected log (proxy_list_traffic), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 gives a clear use case ('so the agent's context stays small during bug investigation') and clarifies that the proxy still intercepts all traffic, indicating this tool is for retention scoping only. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it beyond this distinction.

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