search_traffic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it searches with filters but does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, what the output format is, any rate limits, or if state is modified. The minimal description leaves significant gaps.

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, using a single sentence followed by a clean bullet list of parameters. Every element is purposeful, and the structure is easy to scan, though it lacks a return value note or usage example.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. However, it omits important contextual details such as pagination, filtering logic (AND/OR), and the specific fields available for search. For a tool with many siblings, more contextual guidance would improve completeness.

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 adds value by explaining each parameter's role (e.g., 'query: Keywords to search in URL or body'). However, the explanations are shallow and do not cover constraints like value formats or allowed patterns for 'method'.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'captured traffic', indicating it searches through captured traffic with filters. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_traffic_summary' (summary) and 'inspect_flow(s)' (specific flow inspection), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'inspect_flows', 'get_traffic_summary'). There is no mention of appropriate contexts or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer without support.

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