peerglass_atlas_trace

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

Adds significant context beyond annotations: discloses the API key authentication requirement (auth needs), explains the distributed nature of the probe network (architectural context), and details the return format ('Traceroute hop tables per probe with RTT and IP'). Annotations only cover safety profile (readOnly/destructive), while description explains operational requirements.

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?

Well-structured with front-loaded purpose sentence followed by context (network), prerequisites (API key), and docstring-style Args/Returns sections. No wasted sentences given the schema description gap. Slightly formal structure but appropriate for the technical complexity.

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?

Complete coverage for a measurement tool: explains what it does, what it needs (auth), parameter semantics, and return format ('hop tables with RTT and IP'). With annotations covering safety hints and the description covering operational details, no significant 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?

Schema has 0% description coverage (no property descriptions), but the Args section fully compensates by documenting all three sub-parameters: target semantics ('IP address or hostname'), probes constraints ('default 5, max 25'), and response_format options ('markdown' or 'json'). Carries the full documentation burden effectively.

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?

Excellent specificity: 'Launch a RIPE Atlas traceroute measurement' provides exact verb, service (RIPE Atlas), and operation type (traceroute). The mention of 'global probe network' distinguishes it from local traceroute tools and siblings like `rir_looking_glass` or `peerglass_dns_resolve`.

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 prerequisite: 'Requires PEERGLASS_RIPE_ATLAS_KEY environment variable.' The mention of 'thousands of vantage points' implies the distributed use case (when you need geographic diversity). Lacks explicit comparison to local traceroute alternatives, but the API key requirement serves as a clear gate for when-to-use.

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