MTU black-hole detector

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description details the tool's behavior: it sends DF pings, small packets pass while large disappear without ICMP reply. This adds valuable behavioral context not captured by 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 two sentences, well-structured, and front-loaded with the technique and purpose. Every sentence provides essential information 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 tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and comprehensive annotations, the description sufficiently covers the diagnostic scenario and return behavior implied. No gaps remain.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter 'host' described as 'host to probe the path MTU to'. The description does not add extra meaning or constraints beyond this, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 performs Path-MTU discovery via Don't-Fragment pings to detect MTU black holes. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from sibling tools by addressing a specific network issue that others like ping or traceroute may not catch.

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 explains the symptom (connections hang on big transfers over VPN/PPPoE), guiding when to use. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, missing some clarity on selection.

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