traffic_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden. It explicitly tags the tool as [READ], discloses that metrics availability depends on the platform, and explains the truncation behavior of the returned envelope. It goes beyond a simple description by noting the caddy teaching note and the envelope's 'truncated' flag.

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 well-organized with a clear summary, labeled Args, and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, including platform caveats and output envelope details. It is concise without unnecessary 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?

The description covers the return envelope and truncation behavior, which is essential given no output schema. It also mentions metric types and platform dependencies. It could be slightly more detailed about the shape of each service object, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a moderately complex tool with one parameter.

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?

The schema provides no description for the 'target' parameter (0% coverage), but the description adds useful semantics: it is a proxy target name from config and omitting it selects the default. This compensates for the schema gap and gives the agent enough context to use the parameter correctly.

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 clearly states the tool provides a per-service traffic snapshot with specific metrics (requests, latency/rate/sessions). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on traffic metrics and mentions platform-specific sources, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 usage context is implied: use when needing traffic statistics per service. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like proxy_overview or list_services, nor does it mention exclusions. It lacks clear alternative guidance.

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