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 only states the tool's action without revealing potential side effects, privileges required, output behavior, or any limitations. The description is essentially a restatement of the tool name and adds no transparency beyond the schema.

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, directly stating the action. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is extremely brief, which slightly limits its value but does not affect efficiency.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which reduces the need to explain return values), the description is minimal and does not provide context about when to use the tool, what the output means, or any operational details. For a network diagnostic tool with two parameters, this level of description is insufficient.

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 already has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters: 'target' as target IP or domain and 'interface' as outgoing interface. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 '执行 Traceroute 路由追踪' clearly states the tool's function: execute a traceroute. The verb '执行' (execute) plus the specific resource 'traceroute' distinguishes it from sibling diagnostic tools like ping_test, iperf_test, and speed_test. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selecting this tool over other network diagnostics like ping_test or iperf_test.

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