net.trace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the hop-list output fields, but says nothing about required privileges, timeout behavior, blocking risks, protocol used, or what happens when a hop fails to respond.

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 single fragment is concise but severely under-specified for a tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. Brevity here comes at the cost of necessary context rather than efficient communication.

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 definition is incomplete given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions. It partially describes return fields but omits host format expectations, default and maximum behavior for maxHops and timeoutMs, and operational caveats an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It mentions only output fields (ttl, ip, latency) and adds no meaning for 'host', 'maxHops', or 'timeoutMs', leaving all three parameters without descriptive semantics.

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 phrase 'Traceroute hop list' clearly identifies the operation and the resource it returns, and '(ttl, ip, latency)' specifies the output fields. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as net.ping or net.deepscan, but the purpose is still readily understandable.

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 like net.ping, net.portcheck, or net.deepscan. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual cues to help an agent select it correctly.

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