get-traffic-flows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what 'comprehensive filtering' entails beyond the schema. For a tool with 12 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get traffic flows') and adds a key feature ('comprehensive filtering options'). There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the complexity (12 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or how filtering interacts with the many parameters. For a data retrieval tool with extensive filtering, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 description coverage is 50%, with detailed descriptions for some parameters (e.g., date formats, source/destination types) but none for others (e.g., 'exclude_workloads_from_ip_list_query', 'max_results', 'query_name'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond 'comprehensive filtering options', which is vague. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the partial 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('traffic flows from the PCE'), and specifies 'comprehensive filtering options' which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get-traffic-flows-summary' that likely provides aggregated data. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with that sibling, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-traffic-flows-summary' or other data retrieval tools. It mentions filtering options but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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