Stop Traceroute

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about whether stopping is immediate, whether it affects other sessions, what permissions are required, or what happens to the traceroute output. The single phrase adds no behavioral context beyond the name, so a 1 is warranted.

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 very short, but conciseness is about appropriate sizing and front-loading useful information. Here the one phrase merely restates the name and does not earn its place by adding any actionable detail, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a stop-operation tool, the description still lacks any context about when to use it, what state it changes, or how it relates to starting traceroutes. Given the sibling stop_ping and the absence of annotations, more context is needed.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4 per the rubric. The description cannot add parameter meaning because there are no parameters to describe, and the empty schema is self-explanatory.

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 '停止 Traceroute' is a direct Chinese translation of the title 'Stop Traceroute' and the tool name 'stop_traceroute', adding no information beyond what the structured name already conveys. Per the rubric, restating the name/title is a tautology, scoring 2. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling stop operations like stop_ping.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. It does not say when to call this versus traceroute, traceroute_result, or stop_ping. This is 'no guidance' territory, scoring 2.

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