MTR from Akamai Edge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool does (runs MTR, shows path/latency/loss) but does not mention permissions, side effects, rate limits, or any nuances beyond the basic operation. Since it is a diagnostic, it is implied to be read-only, but this is not explicit.

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, front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and contains zero fluff. It efficiently conveys purpose and output.

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 has 10 parameters and no output schema, yet the description only provides a high-level overview. It does not explain how to choose between source types (EDGE_IP vs LOCATION) or when specific parameters like siteShieldHostname are needed. The schema covers the details, but the description lacks guidance for complex scenarios.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are already described in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, so it is at the baseline of 3.

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 runs an MTR network diagnostic from an Akamai edge server to a destination IP or hostname. This is a specific verb+resource+scope that distinguishes it from sibling tools like dig_from_edge and curl_from_edge, which perform different network diagnostics.

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 a clear use case ('Useful for diagnosing connectivity issues') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. It implies usage for network path analysis but lacks differentiation from other connectivity diagnostic tools like connectivity_problems or url_health_check.

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