search_traffic

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the prerequisite, AND logic across filters, default limit (50), and search scope (URL/request body/response body for query). While it doesn't detail edge cases like empty traces or no matches, the core behavior is well-specified for the user. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to explain return structure.

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 longer than average but every section earns its place: a one-line summary, a prerequisite, usage differentiation, filter semantics, and concrete examples. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured with clear sections, making it scannable and efficient despite its length.

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 tool has 5 optional parameters, no annotations, and a rich schema. The description covers all essential contextual info: prerequisites, filter behavior, combination logic, parameter semantics, and examples. It also distinguishes from a sibling tool. Since an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. This is fully complete for a search tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description's Args section adds substantial meaning to each parameter: query (searches URL and bodies), domain (exact match), method (HTTP verbs), status_code (exact code), and limit (max results with default). Examples illustrate parameter usage, far exceeding the bare schema. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 a specific verb+resource pair: 'Search captured traffic' with the dimensions keyword, domain, HTTP method, or status code. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_traffic_summary by stating 'Use this instead of get_traffic_summary when you need to find specific requests.' This meets the highest bar for purpose clarity.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance, naming the alternative (get_traffic_summary) and stating the prerequisite that the proxy must be running and have captured traffic. It also clarifies that filters are optional and combine with AND logic, providing concrete examples. This fully addresses usage context.

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