system_bandwidth_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no statement of what data is returned, whether it is aggregated or realtime, what time window applies, or what the tz parameter affects. With annotations carrying the safety burden the bar is lower, but zero added context still falls short.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. A four-word fragment cannot be considered front-loaded when there is effectively no content to load.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining what a 'bandwidth stats' response contains, and it says nothing. For a stats endpoint in a crowded bandwidth/system_stats family, the description should at minimum state the entity scope, time range, and the effect of tz.

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?

There is one parameter (tz) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. The agent cannot tell whether tz expects an IANA name, an offset, or a default behavior when omitted.

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 phrase names a verb and resource ('Get Bandwidth Stats'), which is clearer than a bare tautology, but it gives no scope: bandwidth for what entity, over what period, at what granularity. Sibling tools like bandwidth_nodes_usage, bandwidth_user_usage and bandwidth_squad_usage make the ambiguity worse, since the description offers nothing to distinguish this tool from any of them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no indication of what separates this from the many bandwidth_* and system_stats* siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must guess based on the name alone.

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