get_response_time_analysis

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

The description discloses key behaviors: excludes same-sender continuations and gaps over 1 hour, which are important for understanding the tool's output. Since no annotations are provided, this carries the full burden of transparency.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that front-load purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value, with no 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description partially explains the output (intervals grouped by pair) but lacks details on metric type (mean, median, etc.) or default sorting. It is reasonably complete for a query tool but leaves some ambiguity.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, e.g., grouping or filtering logic are implied but not linked to 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 clearly states the tool computes reply intervals between consecutive messages from different senders, grouped by (from, to) pair. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like get_time_stats which likely focus on overall time patterns, not response times.

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 explicitly says 'Use for 'who responds fastest' type questions,' providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools.

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