Traffic By Host

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden, yet 'summary' only weakly implies a read-only aggregation. It discloses nothing about return shape, window semantics, sampling behavior, permissions, or rate limits.

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 tight sentence with the scoping constraint front-loaded and no filler. Conciseness is good, though the efficiency comes partly from simply saying too little.

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?

For a 7-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It should at least define the time window, ranking (top_n), and bucketing behavior that the parameters imply.

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 0% and 7 parameters include top_n, window, account, host_field, sample_size, and bucket_count — none explained anywhere. The description only clarifies the required hostname scoping, leaving the semantics of the other six parameters undocumented.

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 specific verb+resource ('aggregated traffic summary') and scope ('scoped to a single hostname'), which distinguishes it from siblings like traffic_by_ip and traffic_by_path by the grouping key. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 parenthetical '(see search_logs)' hints at a relationship but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no condition distinguishing it from traffic_by_ip, group_by_ip, or timeline. An agent must infer the choice from the name alone.

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