network_traffic

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

The description discloses key behavior: it is a read operation (marked [READ]), and it explains pagination semantics via 'returned'/'limit'/'truncated' fields and the need to re-run if truncated is true. Since no annotations are present, this adds important transparency 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 short and structured with a purpose line followed by a bulleted argument list. Every sentence provides value, and no redundant or extraneous content is present.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, and pagination behavior. However, without an output schema, it lacks detail on the structure of each returned row beyond 'top apps by bytes.' This is a minor gap for a tool that returns a list of records.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all four parameters: network_id source, timespan range and default, limit default and pagination note, and target omission guidance. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 starts with '[READ] Application/protocol traffic mix for a network, top apps by bytes.' This clearly states the tool's action (read), resource (traffic mix), and scope (top apps). It distinguishes from sibling tools like client_list or device_status by focusing on traffic analysis.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as device_status or network_health_score. The description only details parameters without usage context, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness.

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