Traceroute

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait: this is a long-running/async task whose result is fetched via traceroute_result rather than returned inline. That is meaningful context beyond the schema. It omits any auth/permission notes, but the async disclosure is the important one.

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?

Two short lines, front-loaded with the core action, and no filler. The parameter-default sentence is somewhat redundant given the schema, but overall it is tight.

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 described, and the description supplies the missing async-workflow context. For a diagnostic traceroute tool this is largely sufficient, with only the parameter-label mismatch as a rough edge.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description merely restates default values already in the schema, and it actually mislabels the parameter: it calls it 'max' while the schema defines 'max_hops', which could momentarily confuse an agent rather than help it.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('执行 Traceroute 路由追踪' / execute traceroute route tracing), which is unambiguous. It partially differentiates from siblings by pointing to traceroute_result for reading output, but does not clarify its relationship to stop_traceroute or why one would not just poll the result tool.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool nature, and the description does give one useful operational cue (long task, read via traceroute_result). However there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the stop_traceroute alternative for canceling.

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