import_traffic

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses type detection behavior (kind=auto), return format (flow JSON plus request_count), and that response details are omitted by default unless include_response_detail=true. This is valuable beyond the basic purpose.

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 four tightly worded sentences. Every sentence adds distinct information—purpose, workflow placement, auto-detection, and response detail behavior.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, the description provides key context: when to use, what it returns, and a critical default behavior. It omits details on base_url and include_static, but the output schema and sibling tools fill some gaps. Overall adequate.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains kind and include_response_detail but leaves base_url and include_static ambiguous, though source_path is implied by the import context. Partial compensation.

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 the tool imports HAR, OpenAPI, or Postman traffic into a normalised Flow. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_test or analyze_results.

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 explicitly says 'Use at the start of scripting,' placing this tool early in the workflow. It doesn't name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context signals provide clear separation from siblings.

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