service_response_time

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool measures latency between request and response and returns min/max/avg statistics. However, it does not mention whether data is aggregated across time or sessions, or any side effects. It implies read-only behavior but is not explicit.

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 and front-loaded with the key output. It is concise without unnecessary words. Could be slightly more efficient, but overall well-structured.

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 has 3 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description fails to cover parameter details or return format. It is not sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool without additional knowledge.

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%. The description does not explain any of the three parameters (alias, protocol, display_filter). The user cannot infer what values to provide or how they affect the results. This is a critical gap for a tool with required 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 it provides min/max/avg latency per request type and measures elapsed time between request and response. It's specific about the resource (response time statistics) and the verb (measures). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'response_time_delay'.

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 mentions use cases (detecting slow servers, network congestion, anomalous patterns) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'response_time_delay' or 'protocol_stats'. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.

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