query_recorded_traffic

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly discloses the key non-obvious trait: this tool never reads the live Charles session, only saved recordings. This is exactly the kind of safety-relevant behavior an agent needs. It does not describe failure modes or edge cases, but for a read-only query tool the most critical behavior is covered.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action comes first, followed by the critical scope limitation, the usage condition, and the alternative tool. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

For a filtered read tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: what it targets, when to use it, and what to use instead. The main gap is the unexplained boolean parameters, but that is already penalized under parameter semantics, and the output schema relieves the description of return-format duties.

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 covers 60% of parameters, but keep_request and keep_response are left with only titles and defaults, and the description adds no parameter-level guidance. An agent cannot tell what these booleans control or how they affect query output without additional inference.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Query the latest saved recording." It explicitly labels the tool as HISTORY-PLANE and distinguishes it from live-traffic tools, so an agent can separate it from siblings like query_live_capture_entries without needing to open 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?

The description gives an explicit condition: only use when the user references a saved recording (.chlsj file), and names the preferred alternative for live traffic (start_live_capture + query_live_capture_entries). This is direct, actionable routing guidance.

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