arkime_spigraph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's role is to add extra behavioral context. It adds details about time range behavior ('Omit = recent-only' for time_from) and parameter defaults, but does not disclose other traits like pagination, rate limits, or data volume implications. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 concise: a one-line summary, a one-line use case, then a clean bullet-style Args list. Every sentence serves a purpose with no fluff. It is well-structured and easy to scan.

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's complexity (5 parameters, 1 required), annotations (readOnly), and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential usage points: what it returns, parameter semantics, and time-related behavior. It does not describe the output structure, but that is provided by the output schema. The missing parts (e.g., output format details) are minor.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden. It explains all five parameters with concrete examples: field (e.g., 'ip.dst'), expression (optional filter), size (1-100), time_from (epoch seconds, default recent-only), and time_to. This adds rich meaning beyond the bare schema, fully compensating for the lack of inline parameter descriptions.

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 it returns 'Top values of one Arkime field, with a time-series graph.' It uses a specific verb ('returns top values') and identifies the resource ('Arkime field'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like arkime_unique or arkime_spiview, which also deal with fields and unique values, slightly reducing clarity.

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 mentions it is 'Good for finding top talkers or spotting a value that spikes over time,' which provides clear use cases. However, it lacks guidance on when not to use this tool (e.g., when a simple count suffices) and does not mention alternative tools like arkime_unique or search_dsl for different scenarios.

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