network_traceroute

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

The description discloses the required permission (network.read), which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it does not describe other behavioral traits like typical runtime, output format, or potential side effects. With no annotations to rely on, the description carries full burden but only partially fulfills it.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Traceroute to a host') followed by the required permission. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or excessive detail.

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 tool is simple with one parameter, and the description covers the essential purpose and permission. However, it lacks guidance on when to use the tool and does not describe the expected output or return behavior, which is relevant since no output schema is provided. The description is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, and the schema already describes 'host' as 'Hostname or IP'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating the target as 'host'. The baseline of 3 for full schema coverage is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Traceroute' with a clear target ('to a host'), which precisely identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling network tools like network_ping or network_ports. The phrase 'Requires network.read permission' adds context without obscuring the core purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as network_ping or network_dns. It only mentions a permission prerequisite, which is not a usage scenario or exclusion. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance.

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