proxy_enable_server_tls_capture

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the effect (intercept outgoing TLS, extract negotiated parameters) but does not disclose potential side effects like performance impact or how captured data is stored/retrieved.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the action and then describe the effect. No unnecessary words; every sentence is informative.

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 toggle tool with one parameter, the description is nearly complete. It explains what capture does but could mention that extracted data is accessible via other proxy tools (e.g., proxy_get_tls_fingerprints). Minor gap.

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% with a well-described boolean parameter. The description adds the concept of 'toggling' but no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 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 uses specific verb 'Toggle' and resource 'server-side JA3S capture', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like proxy_set_ja3_spoof. It states exactly what the tool does.

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 implies usage context (enable to intercept TLS connections) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It provides clear context for when to toggle capture.

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