query_hit_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 only states the query subject, but does not mention that it is a read-only operation, any rate limits, or side effects. Essential transparency about the tool's safety and impact is missing.

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 very concise (one phrase), but it is too brief to be informative. It lacks structure and detail, though it does not contain fluff. It is minimally acceptable but could be improved with a bullet or additional context.

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 complexity of the query (4 parameters, no output schema, many sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the output looks like, how hit traffic is computed, or how to distinguish this from similar queries. The context signals indicate a moderately complex tool, but the description does not suffice.

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%, with each parameter (scope, domain, start_time, end_time) having a description in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for adequate parameter semantics.

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 states 'query cache hit traffic statistics,' clearly indicating the tool queries cache hit traffic. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like query_cdn_traffic or query_hit_request_count, lacking specificity on what 'hit traffic' means (bytes, requests?). It is not a tautology as it adds Chinese translation but misses scope.

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 such as query_cdn_traffic or query_request_count. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool is more appropriate, leaving the agent without direction.

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