analyze_recorded_traffic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does state what the tool returns ('structured TrafficSummary items with matched_fields and match_reasons') and that it produces compact summaries. It does not explicitly label the operation as read-only or mention side effects, but 'analyze' and 'saved recording snapshot' make the non-mutating intent clear enough.

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?

Every sentence adds a distinct piece of guidance: what it does, when to use it, what to prefer instead, what to preserve, what it returns, and how to drill down. The content is front-loaded and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the return-value mention is a bonus, and the description covers usage context, alternatives, and follow-up workflow. It falls just short of fully complete because it never explicitly states that recording_path must be supplied to select the recording, despite all parameters being marked optional in the schema.

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% across 23 parameters, and the description only adds meaning for recording_path ('preserve it for follow-up detail calls'). The many filter parameters (host_contains, path_contains, status_in, etc.) rely entirely on their names, so the description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Analyze a saved recording snapshot') and the qualifier 'with compact summaries' clarifies its scope. It explicitly labels itself as the history-plane tool and names live-capture siblings, so an agent can distinguish it from the cluster of live and reverse tools without inspecting schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('only use when the user explicitly references a saved recording (.chlsj file)') and explicit alternatives for live traffic ('start_live_capture + query_live_capture_entries'). It also tells the agent to preserve recording_path for follow-up and to use get_traffic_entry_detail for drill-down, which is exactly the routing guidance needed.

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