get_traffic_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the prerequisite (proxy running, traffic exists), pagination behavior, and even a token-saving tip (smaller limit). It doesn't cover edge cases like empty traffic or rate limits, but for a read-only listing tool, these are minor gaps.

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-structured with clear sections: purpose, requirements, return fields, workflow, and parameter details. It's slightly longer than minimal due to the workflow line, but every sentence adds value and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 is highly complete for a list tool. It covers prerequisites, pagination, return fields, and integration with other tools. An output schema exists, so detailed return structure is not required, but the description still lists key fields. The workflow provides excellent context.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains both limit and offset with defaults, and provides concrete pagination guidance (offset=20 gets the next page). This is more than enough for an agent to invoke 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 'Get a paginated list of all captured HTTP flows' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like inspect_flow (which inspects a single flow) by emphasizing 'all captured flows' and pagination. The workflow snippet further clarifies its role.

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 gives clear usage context: requires a running proxy and existing traffic, and explains how to use returned flow_id values with downstream tools. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like search_traffic or state when not to use this tool, but the context is sufficient for appropriate selection.

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