sys_app_bandwidth

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'read-only', which is a useful non-destructive signal, but it does not describe what the returned data looks like, whether it is real-time or historical, or any other side effects. This is minimal but not misleading.

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, front-loaded phrase with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the critical 'read-only' attribute is placed prominently. It is an ideal example of conciseness.

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 tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand its purpose and invoke it. The only minor gap is a lack of differentiation from similar sibling tools, but the purpose is clear enough for a correct call.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema covers them trivially. Per calibration, 0 params gives a baseline of 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter information, which is appropriate. There is nothing beyond the schema to explain.

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 identifies the resource as 'application bandwidth usage' and states it is read-only. It conveys a specific purpose that distinguishes it from many siblings (e.g., show_traffic, show_statistic). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or further scope, so it stops short of a perfect 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 purpose implies when to use it (when application bandwidth usage is needed), but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer. It provides no exclusions or alternatives, relying on the agent to infer usage from the name and description.

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