interceptor_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses some return behavior ('including all active targets and their details'), which is genuinely useful. However, it does not address what happens for an unknown/inactive interceptor_id, whether the operation is read-only in practice, or any error/edge cases, so an agent cannot predict failure modes.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler. 'Get detailed status' leads immediately, and the 'including...' clause adds valuable return-content context without bloating the description.

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 simple one-parameter read-style tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does and roughly what it returns. Minor gaps remain – behavior on invalid IDs, prerequisites such as the interceptor being active, and a richer description of the 'details' returned – but the core information an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present.

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% – the single parameter interceptor_id is already documented with type and concrete examples ('browser', 'terminal', 'docker'). The tool description adds little beyond the schema, only reinforcing the 'specific interceptor' notion. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Get detailed status of a specific interceptor') and clarifies scope via 'specific' and 'including all active targets and their details.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like interceptor_list, but the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit – it never names an alternative tool, so an agent must infer the boundary from tool names.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not say when to use this tool versus interceptor_list, interceptor_spawn, or the interceptor_browser_* actions, nor does it state any prerequisites (e.g., the interceptor must be active or spawned first). Usage context is only implied by the word 'specific.'

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