Monitor Network

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb '查看' weakly implies a read-only operation, but there is no disclosure of rate limits, polling semantics, authentication requirements, or what a 'network traffic' reading actually contains — all significant gaps for a monitoring tool.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — a single fragment that omits everything an agent needs. Brevity here costs more than it saves.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the description is still incomplete: with four parameters, no annotations, and a vague subject ('network traffic'), the agent has no idea what is measured, over what interval, or how the result should be interpreted.

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 100%, so host, port, scheme, and profile are already documented in the schema with examples (5667/5666/443) and defaults. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a verb ('查看'/'view') and a resource ('网络流量'/'network traffic'), so the basic intent is recoverable. However it gives no scope, metric type, or interface detail, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like monitor_metrics or network_ssh_status.

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 alternatives named, and no conditions under which this tool should be preferred over monitor_metrics, network_ssh_status, or the other monitor_* siblings. The agent is left to guess entirely.

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