web_traffic_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only', discloses log auto-discovery, and the awareness of X-Forwarded-For / mod_remoteip. It also indicates the output scope. It could mention performance implications or time-window behavior, but the key safety trait (read-only) is clearly disclosed.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence earns its place: what it does, why it's better than an alternative, and a behavioral note (read-only). No fluff or 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?

Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description covers the tool's function, output categories, sibling differentiation, and auto-discovery behavior. It doesn't detail return format or error conditions, but for a log-summarization read-only tool, the essentials are covered.

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 all 4 parameters already have meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds minimal parameter-specific detail beyond repeating the log_path auto-discovery behavior already in the schema; it does not introduce new semantics for lines, top_n, or instance_id.

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 uses a specific verb 'Summarize' and precisely identifies the resource: a managed instance's own web access logs. It enumerates concrete outputs (per-vhost request volume, req/s, status-code mix, top IPs/URLs) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling cloudwatch_top_ips, which sees only WAF logs.

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 provides clear usage context by contrasting with cloudwatch_top_ips ('Reads the decisive on-box data that cloudwatch_top_ips ... cannot see'), implying when to choose this tool over that alternative. It also explains the optional log_path auto-discovery, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool or all alternatives.

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