flow_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It does disclose one important behavioral trait: 'numeric path segments are normalised to {n}', which is a non-obvious aggregation behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, whether any caching/rate limits apply, or any other side effect. The normalization detail earns a 3.

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 sentences each earn their place: the first is a dense summary of what the tool returns, the second gives context and value, the third explains a critical data-normalization rule. Zero padding, front-loaded with the resource and purpose.

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 low complexity (one optional param, an output schema exists, and no nested objects), the description is largely complete. It explains what it reports, when to use it, and one important normalization behavior. It doesn't elaborate on the parameter or detail 'asset ratio', but the output schema covers return details. A 4 is appropriate.

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 description does not mention the sole parameter 'top_endpoints' at all. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it only says 'hottest endpoints', leaving the relationship between the parameter and the result implied. The parameter's name is a slight hint but the description adds essentially no semantic value beyond that.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Overview of captured traffic' and then specifies the exact dimensions (hosts, status codes, asset ratio, hottest endpoints). It also contains a strong distinguisher from siblings: 'the first thing to run against an unfamiliar site' is positioning that separates it from inspect_flow, search_flows, and replay_flow.

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 usage context is given: 'This is the first thing to run against an unfamiliar site' and it explains why it helps (tells you the interesting host and whether anything is failing). It doesn't name specific sibling tools for non-existent cases, so it's clear but lacks exclusions, putting it at a 4.

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