List traffic

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the structured data: response bodies are redacted server-side before return, which tells the agent to expect truncated payloads. It stops short of describing ordering or what a result row contains.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each carries content. Minor overlap in re-listing the filter dimensions that the schema already enumerates, but nothing is padded or redundant at the sentence level.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, filter dimensions, pagination, and the redaction caveat, which is enough to invoke it correctly. Missing only ordering/default-sort behavior and a clear boundary against the overlapping 'search_traffic' sibling.

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 all five parameters are already documented with descriptions (substring match, 1-indexed page, capped page size, etc.). The description restates the filter dimensions but adds no syntax, defaults, or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List captured HTTP/HTTPS requests') that is unambiguous on its own. However, it never differentiates itself from the sibling 'search_traffic', which an agent could easily confuse with this tool given the overlapping subject matter.

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 explains what the filters do but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives. With a sibling named 'search_traffic' in the same toolset, the absence of a 'use this for X vs. search_traffic for Y' clause is a real gap.

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