bandwidth_stats_users_by_nodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data aggregation (top per-user) but does not specify potential side effects (likely read-only), rate limits, or how results are ordered/truncated. The absence of annotations and output schema leaves behavior opaque.

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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. No redundancy or filler; it's appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 tool is moderately complex with 4 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the basic purpose but lacks behavior details like response format, ordering, and whether topUsersLimit is inclusive. With no annotations, an agent might need to infer pagination behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds context for 'nodesUuids' and 'date range' but does not explain the meaning of 'topUsersLimit' beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('top per-user bandwidth usage'), and the scope ('across the given nodes for a date range'). It differentiates from general bandwidth tools like system_bandwidth_stats by focusing on per-user node-specific data, but doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 a reporting/analytics context, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like system_bandwidth_stats or hwid_top_users. The sibling list includes many bandwidth-related tools, but no exclusions or alternative suggestions are given.

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