cf_get_traffic

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

The description marks the tool as read-only ('Lecture seule'), which is the key behavioral trait. However, without annotations, it could have disclosed more (e.g., no side effects, rate limits). It is minimally sufficient.

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 very concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It wastes no words, though it could benefit from a bit more structure (e.g., list of metrics).

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 does not explain the output format or structure of the returned data. Since there is no output schema, the agent might not know what to expect from the response (e.g., time series, aggregated totals). This is a notable gap for a data retrieval 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?

The schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (zone, days) with defaults and max values. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema offers, so it does not compensate beyond baseline.

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 aggregates Cloudflare zone traffic metrics (requests, page views, unique visitors, threats, cache) per day. It is distinct from sibling tools like cf_get_targeted_paths which focus on specific paths.

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 implies usage for getting aggregated traffic data over N days but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings or any prerequisites. It is adequate but lacks guidance on tool selection.

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