proxy_list_traffic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'returns paginated results' without mentioning read-only nature, ordering, error handling, or side effects. The lack of detail limits an agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose, verb, resource, and key features (filters, pagination). No redundant words, well-structured and front-loaded.

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 list tool with 7 optional filters and pagination, the description lacks details about filter combination logic (AND/OR), pagination structure (e.g., total count), and output format. With no output schema, the description should provide more context to be complete.

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?

All 7 parameters have schema descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond summarizing that filters are optional. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 'list' and the resource 'captured HTTP exchanges', and mentions optional filters and pagination. It distinguishes from similar siblings like 'proxy_search_traffic' by using 'list' rather than 'search', but does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'proxy_list_sessions'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of when to apply filters or how pagination works. The description is too terse to inform an AI agent about appropriate usage scenarios.

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