get_top_traffic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavioral traits: the data is a live snapshot, hostnames and application names are resolved for readability, and the tool returns empty rather than historical data when no traffic flows. It omits permission/authentication requirements and any cost or performance characteristics.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with the live/non-historical nature front-loaded, followed by output-shaping details and the empty-state caveat. No sentence is filler and nothing is buried.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry return semantics — and it does, explaining the grouping, the resolved hostname and application-name enrichment, and the empty-when-idle behavior. Remaining gaps are row/pagination semantics tied to the count parameter and any concurrency or rate considerations.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters including the report_by and sort_by enums. The description's enumeration of group-by dimensions loosely mirrors report_by but adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource (live FortiView summary of current sessions) and states the grouping dimensions, which clearly separates it from a raw session list. It never names a sibling tool such as list_sessions or get_logs, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being told it.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Live ... sessions passing through right now' and 'not history' signals real-time monitoring versus log/history queries, which is genuinely useful context. However, no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-not-to-use rule is given beyond the empty-result note.

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