wireshark_stats_service_response_time

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

Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint: true`, indicating safe read-only behavior. The description adds minimal extra context: it identifies the tool as providing statistics but does not disclose any side effects, dependencies, or what happens on failure. No contradictions with annotations.

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 with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the key concept ('Service response time statistics'). However, at the cost of comprehensiveness, it does not elaborate on output or usage.

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 low schema coverage, no output schema, and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the statistical output contains (e.g., format, fields) or how the protocol filter affects results. A more complete description would at least mention return values or provide an example.

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% (no parameter descriptions in schema), so the description must fill the gap. It mentions the `protocol` parameter with example values, which adds some meaning beyond the schema (which only shows type and default). However, it does not describe the required `pcap_file` parameter, leaving its semantics entirely to the agent's inference. A more complete description would explain both parameters.

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 it provides 'service response time statistics' and lists example protocols, but it does not explain what specific statistics are computed (e.g., average, min, max). The abbreviation 'SRT' is not expanded, which may confuse agents. While it differentiates from sibling stats tools by focusing on response time, the lack of detail reduces clarity.

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 alternative stats tools like `wireshark_stats_io_graph` or `wireshark_stats_protocol_hierarchy`. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or context where this tool is appropriate.

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