mtr

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like network impact, permissions, or rate limits. It only states the test type, omitting that MTR may send many packets and take time. No mention of return format or side effects.

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 a single concise sentence, efficient in length. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, but could benefit from additional structure to highlight key aspects.

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 complexity (network diagnostic with potential side effects, 3 parameters, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It lacks return value information, behavioral caveats, or usage context, failing to make the tool complete for an 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?

The schema descriptions for the three parameters are present ('Target URL', 'Country code for proxy routing', default for followRedirect), but the tool description adds no additional meaning. Context indicates 67% schema coverage, yet the description fails to compensate for any missing schema descriptions.

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 'Perform MTR network diagnostic test' clearly states the action (perform) and resource (MTR network diagnostic test). While MTR is a specific tool, the description does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like ping or traceroute, but it is sufficiently specific to understand the tool's function.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ping, traceroute). The description does not mention when MTR is preferable or any prerequisites, leaving the agent without decision support.

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