llm_http_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description partially conveys behavior by mentioning the output fields. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, how aggregation works, or what 'slow-response' specifically means. More behavioral context needed.

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 concise sentence, front-loading the key information. It is efficient but could benefit from slight restructuring for readability, though not a major issue.

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 three parameters with no schema descriptions and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks prerequisites (e.g., a capture must be active), parameter details, and the nature of the summary. Output schema exists but does not compensate for missing selection guidance.

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%, so the description must clarify parameter meanings. It fails to explain 'limit' and 'slow_seconds' beyond their names; the connection to 'slow-response summary' is vague. Requires improvement.

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 tool returns a summary of HTTP host, method, status, error, and slow-response. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like llm_dns_summary and llm_tls_summary.

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 usage via the required capture_path parameter, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like stats_http or other HTTP-related tools. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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