network_traceroute_stream

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: SSE streaming format, outbound probe sending, worker/clamping behavior, and rate limits. It does not contradict annotations and provides additional detail beyond structured fields.

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 concise and well-structured: it starts with the core function, then provides key behavioral details, usage guidance, and rate limits in a logical order. Every sentence adds value without 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 complexity of a live traceroute tool, the description covers the streaming nature, network effects, rate limits, worker behavior, and parameter clamping. It also describes the SSE event types, providing sufficient context for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior and outputs.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds minimal extra meaning, only briefly mentioning clamping behavior already documented in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 performs a live traceroute to a target host, streaming results hop-by-hop via SSE. It distinguishes from the sibling network_ping by specifying that this tool is for full path information, while network_ping is for single round-trip measurements.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs network_ping, highlights that results vary between calls due to live network state, and mentions CAPTCHA and rate limits. It also notes the preferred use of a remote worker with local fallback.

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