get_bandwidth_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's '[READ]' tag merely repeats that. It discloses nothing extra: no return format, no rate limits, no scoping, no indication of what the bandwidth figures cover.

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?

Extremely terse and front-loaded: the name and endpoint are given with zero padding. It is efficient, though verging on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 read tool there is no output schema and no return-value context, the tz parameter is unexplained, and no differentiation from the ~80 sibling get_* tools is offered. An agent cannot confidently decide when this is the right call.

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?

There is one optional parameter (tz) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The agent receives no explanation of what the timezone parameter does or what format it expects, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a clear verb and resource ('Get Bandwidth Stats') and adds the concrete endpoint GET /api/system/stats/bandwidth, so the agent knows it retrieves bandwidth data. However, it never distinguishes this from near-identical siblings such as get_stats, get_http_stats, get_status, or get_stats_digest, leaving the agent to guess which stats tool fits its need.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling stats tools. The agent gets the what but no criteria for choosing this over get_stats or get_http_stats.

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