get_client_traffic

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by saying 'Read-only operation: returns the client's cumulative and recent traffic counters.' This adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as the counters being cumulative/recent and covering rx/tx, throughput. It does not describe exact return formatting, but that is less critical for a read-only stats tool.

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 compact and front-loaded: first sentence states the purpose, second clarifies the read-only nature and return scope, third routes to alternatives, and the Args block is minimal. No wasted language.

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?

The description is complete enough for selection and invocation: required parameter, default site, optional device, and alternatives are all covered. There is no output schema, but the description names the key returned data ('cumulative and recent traffic counters') and the operation type. A slight gap is the absence of units or exact return structure, but this is not blocking for a read-only traffic stats 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 schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already documented accurately (mac, site, device). The description repeats the parameter meanings in an Args block but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the input schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get traffic statistics (rx/tx, throughput) for one client by MAC address.' It also differentiates itself from nearby siblings by explicitly naming get_client_details and get_traffic_summary as alternatives for different use cases.

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?

Explicit when to use and when not: 'Use get_client_details for identity/connection state, or get_traffic_summary for site-wide traffic rather than a single client.' It also identifies that this is read-only, and the optional device parameter is scoped.

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