measure_rtt

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the operation is a measurement, but does not describe input requirements, output semantics, performance implications, or any constraints. The agent is left to infer behavior from the tool name.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and the two scoping modes, though it sacrifices necessary parameter context for brevity.

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?

The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the required 'path' parameter is left ambiguous and there are no annotations to fill any behavioral gaps. For a tool with one required parameter, this is a significant completeness gap.

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%, and the description only adds meaning to 'tcp_stream' ('globally or for one TCP stream'). The required 'path' parameter is completely unexplained — it is not stated to be a capture file path or what formats are supported. The description does not adequately compensate for the schema's missing documentation.

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 a specific action ('Measure RTT distribution and jitter') and resource scope ('globally or for one TCP stream'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings focused on DNS, HTTP, TLS, and anomaly detection, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies two usage contexts: measure across the whole capture or narrow to one TCP stream via the 'tcp_stream' parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to prefer this tool over the sibling analysis tools or what conditions justify the per-stream option.

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