get_bandwidth_stats

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It only states the action and resource; it does not disclose whether the data is current vs. historical, how 'top' is determined, whether a time range applies, or what the response shape is. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence with no filler, making it very efficient for such a simple tool. It is concise, though the brevity contributes to missing behavioral context.

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 that this is a one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the combination of description and schema provides a minimum viable understanding. However, because there are no annotations and the description omits behavioral details (e.g., metric definition, scope, response), it is not fully complete for safe autonomous invocation.

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 schema fully documents the single 'limit' parameter, including its type and default value, so the 100% coverage baseline applies. The description does not add any information about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('top bandwidth consumers'), making the primary function immediately understandable. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like get_dpi_stats or list_clients, but the resource phrase is sufficiently specific.

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?

There is no mention of when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_dpi_stats, get_client_dpi, or get_network_health, nor any exclusionary guidance. The purpose statement weakly implies usage for identifying heavy network users, but no explicit decision context is provided.

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