wireshark_stats_service_response_time

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 mentions the FileNotFound error but does not address other behaviors such as whether the tool modifies data, requires permissions, or the nature of the statistics returned. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 structured with sections (Args, Returns, Errors, Example) and is relatively concise. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the 'Args' section could be integrated into prose to reduce redundancy. Still, it is efficient and front-loaded with the acronym.

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 tool's complexity (2 string parameters, no enums, output schema exists), the description covers the basic usage and one error scenario. However, it lacks details on valid protocol values beyond examples, other possible errors, and return format details (though output schema helps). It is minimally complete but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds value for the 'protocol' parameter by listing examples ('http', 'dns', 'smb') and noting it is an application protocol, but it provides no description for the required 'pcap_file' parameter. The example uses 'pcap_file' but does not explain its format or purpose, leaving a 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 identifies the tool as providing Service Response Time (SRT) statistics for a protocol, and the example confirms it returns statistics. It distinguishes from sibling tools like wireshark_analyze_tcp_health or wireshark_stats_conversations, but could be more explicit with an action verb like 'Calculate'.

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 an example and lists an error but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wireshark_analyze_tcp_health or wireshark_stats_conversations. No when-not or prerequisites are mentioned.

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