get_flow_insights

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it is computed client-side from the largest flows, with explicit caps (500 categories, 200 devices, 50 blocked flows), and it explicitly warns that on a busy network it covers the largest flows, not all of them. It also discloses FIREWALLA_BOX_ID scoping. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 three sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage examples and then necessary computation/scoping caveats. Every sentence contributes to correct tool selection and invocation.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns, and it does: categories, domains, devices, and optional blocked traffic. It also covers limits, scoping, and the optional parameter behavior, making it complete for an agent to call correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that include_blocked yields the 50 most frequent blocked flows and that categories map to top content categories and domains. It does not add much about the period parameter, but the schema already covers it.

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: 'Get category-based flow analysis for a period,' and enumerates concrete outputs (top content categories and their domains, top devices by bandwidth, optionally blocked traffic). It also gives example questions ('what porn sites were accessed') that make the tool's niche unmistakable among flow-related siblings.

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 clear usage context by saying it is 'Ideal for answering questions like...' and by explaining the client-side computation scope. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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