iograph

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it supports up to 8 lines, enumerates valid graph types, explains optional filters, and mentions pagination via skip/limit. It does not cover authentication or side effects, but such details may not be critical for a read-like data tool.

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 and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a clear list of graph types, a brief note on filters, and pagination details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 lack of output schema, the description partially covers the tool's behavior and parameters, but it omits explanation of the 'alias' parameter and does not describe the structure of the returned data (e.g., bucket format). This leaves some ambiguity for an AI agent.

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 add meaning. It explains the 'graphs' parameter with detailed syntax, 'filters' as a parallel list, and 'skip'/'limit' for pagination. It mentions 'interval_ms' implicitly via default bucket count. Only the 'alias' parameter is left unexplained, which is a minor gap.

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's purpose: 'Per-interval traffic graph for up to 8 simultaneous lines.' It lists specific graph types and distinguishes itself from other sibling tools like io_stats and protocol_hierarchy by focusing on time-series graphing with configurable metrics.

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 implicitly indicates usage for graphing traffic per interval, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like io_stats (which might provide aggregate stats) or when not to use it. No clear exclusions or context for selection.

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