thealeph_traceroute_mapper

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

No annotations provided. Description states 'enrich', implying a read-only operation, and lists the enrichments (ASN, PTR, geo). However, it does not disclose whether the tool makes external calls, requires authentication, or has any rate limits. The behavioral disclosure is basic but not comprehensive.

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?

A single, non-wasteful sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. Very concise, though it could include a brief usage example without losing conciseness.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete: it states the input (traceroute) and output enrichments. However, it does not clarify the expected format of the traceroute string or what the enriched output looks like, leaving some gaps for the agent.

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%—both parameters have descriptions (traceroute output string, mode with enum). The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 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 clearly states the tool enriches traceroute hops with ASN, PTR, and geolocation. It uses the verb 'enrich' and resource 'traceroute hops', distinguishing it from sibling tools like thealeph_query_ptr (single PTR lookup) and thealeph_asn_hints (ASN hints).

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?

No explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives mentioned. The description implies usage when a raw traceroute string is available, but does not contrast with sibling tools (e.g., 'use this for bulk enrichment, use query_ptr for single IPs').

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